BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

93 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 160clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi537Mumbai401Karnataka255Bangalore173Ahmedabad105Jaipur93Chennai81Chandigarh76Kolkata73Cochin72Hyderabad43Indore41Pune39Rajkot30Raipur23Calcutta21Lucknow18Nagpur18Visakhapatnam15SC11Surat11Cuttack8Telangana8Rajasthan3Amritsar3Jodhpur2Orissa2Agra1Ranchi1Allahabad1Andhra Pradesh1Jabalpur1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Addition to Income67Section 143(3)54Section 153A47Section 6844Section 26335Section 133A27Section 153C20Disallowance20Section 14819

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 496/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

Showing 1–20 of 93 · Page 1 of 5

Section 25015
Survey u/s 133A10
Penalty9

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 500/JPR/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 505/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section 144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 508/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section 144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 507/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section 144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 506/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section 144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 509/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3)\nof section 92CA; and\n(ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company:\n11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section\n144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed\nassessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1125/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR) &
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

transfer pricing guidelines. In order to examine whether the number of transactions are closely linked or continuous so as to aggregate for the purpose of evaluation what is to be considered is that one transaction is follow-on of the earlier transaction and then the subsequent transaction is carried out and dependent wholly or substantially on the earlier transaction

JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1124/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jan 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR) &
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

transfer pricing guidelines. In order to examine whether the number of transactions are closely linked or continuous so as to aggregate for the purpose of evaluation what is to be considered is that one transaction is follow-on of the earlier transaction and then the subsequent transaction is carried out and dependent wholly or substantially on the earlier transaction

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY (P) LTD., JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1083/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jan 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR) &
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

transfer pricing guidelines. In order to examine whether the number of transactions are closely linked or continuous so as to aggregate for the purpose of evaluation what is to be considered is that one transaction is follow-on of the earlier transaction and then the subsequent transaction is carried out and dependent wholly or substantially on the earlier transaction

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. M/S JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 738/JPR/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jan 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR) &
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

transfer pricing guidelines. In order to examine whether the number of transactions are closely linked or continuous so as to aggregate for the purpose of evaluation what is to be considered is that one transaction is follow-on of the earlier transaction and then the subsequent transaction is carried out and dependent wholly or substantially on the earlier transaction

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

ITA 1517/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip B. Desai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 801A

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

ARUN PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL),, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 599/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 148BSection 263Section 69A

160 CTR 107 (Mad.). The facts and submissions are verifiable from the assessment record. The Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Green World Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 81 (Supreme Court) held that ‘The jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised only when both the following conditions are satisfied (i) the order of the assessing officer should be erroneous

ZARI SILK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 600/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 148BSection 263Section 69A

160 CTR 107 (Mad.). The facts and submissions are verifiable from the assessment record. The Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Green World Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 81 (Supreme Court) held that ‘The jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised only when both the following conditions are satisfied (i) the order of the assessing officer should be erroneous

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 475/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Jt.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 160Section 163

transfer of capital assets which were sold by the assessee as representative assessee of the foreigner, whereon tax @ 20% on 2,83,94,600/- as capital gain was required to be paid by the seller and since seller did not pay the capital gain tax, it was duty of the assessee as an agent and representative assessee of the seller

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 558/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Jt.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 160Section 163

transfer of capital assets which were sold by the assessee as representative assessee of the foreigner, whereon tax @ 20% on 2,83,94,600/- as capital gain was required to be paid by the seller and since seller did not pay the capital gain tax, it was duty of the assessee as an agent and representative assessee of the seller

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 934/JPR/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2018AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Porwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

160 taxman 19, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has dealt Rajasthan State Electricity Board as a government company and is also subject to the rigorous of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board was a government company and was subject to the Income Tax Act. 9.2 Since the Rajasthan State

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 890/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Porwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

160 taxman 19, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has dealt Rajasthan State Electricity Board as a government company and is also subject to the rigorous of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board was a government company and was subject to the Income Tax Act. 9.2 Since the Rajasthan State

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 933/JPR/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2018AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Porwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

160 taxman 19, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has dealt Rajasthan State Electricity Board as a government company and is also subject to the rigorous of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board was a government company and was subject to the Income Tax Act. 9.2 Since the Rajasthan State

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 935/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Porwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

160 taxman 19, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has dealt Rajasthan State Electricity Board as a government company and is also subject to the rigorous of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board was a government company and was subject to the Income Tax Act. 9.2 Since the Rajasthan State