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.

299 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 111clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi636Mumbai460Karnataka299Bangalore189Ahmedabad124Chennai110Jaipur89Hyderabad83Indore69Kolkata69Pune68Cochin62Calcutta50Chandigarh42Rajkot26Agra20Lucknow19Raipur18SC15Cuttack14Jodhpur12Surat11Visakhapatnam11Telangana10Nagpur9Ranchi7Rajasthan3Allahabad3Guwahati2Amritsar1Andhra Pradesh1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Addition to Income58Section 26019Section 43Section 5(2)3Section 1472Section 32(1)2Section 1482Section 1002

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

ITA/100012/2017HC Karnataka17 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 260ASection 37(1)Section 92ASection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer and subsequently an order under Section 92CA came to be passed on 23.01.2013 making the following adjustment to the admitted value of international transactions. 5 (a) In respect of sale of iron ore 111

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Showing 1–20 of 299 · Page 1 of 15

...
ITA/70/2007HC Karnataka26 Sept 2012

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

Section 100

price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made.— 3Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. 1In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

ITA/154/2014HC Karnataka05 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 32(1)Section 43(1)

111/- 5 respectively. The assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2008-09 declaring the income as ‘NIL’. The case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2005-06 was reopened under Section 147 of the Act on the ground that during the course of the proceeding for Assessment Year 2007-08, it was noticed

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/881/2008HC Karnataka25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/211/2009HC Karnataka25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

M/S INDUS TOWERS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, we pass the following order:

WA/3403/2011HC Karnataka07 Sept 2011

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Section 4

transfer of right to use the machinery in tavour of the contractors and in the cthse zce of satisfqinq the essential requirement cf’ section 5-E of the Act, i. a, trans/dr of right to use machinery, the hire charges cOileCtea. 01] LOS rC5/Jofldent j?om the contracts were not exigthle to sales tax. On a careful reading and analysi

M/S PADMAVATHI FERROUS LTD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

WP/49694/2016HC Karnataka04 Oct 2017

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

M/S. BMM ISPAT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

WP/43969/2016HC Karnataka04 Oct 2017

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

HINDUSTAN CALCINED METALS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

WP/46232/2016HC Karnataka04 Oct 2017

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

M/S ELECTROTHERM (INDIA)LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

WP/51110/2016HC Karnataka04 Oct 2017

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

M/S JEEVAKA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

WP/53987/2016HC Karnataka04 Oct 2017

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

M/S. HOTHUR TRADERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

WP/44105/2016HC Karnataka04 Oct 2017

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

SATHVAHANA ISPAT LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

WP/43871/2016HC Karnataka04 Oct 2017

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

IRON ORE END USERS ASSOCIATION vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

WP/43951/2016HC Karnataka04 Oct 2017

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

MUKUND LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

WP/43949/2016HC Karnataka04 Oct 2017

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

M/S S.V.CHETTY IRON ORE MINES vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

WP/46963/2016HC Karnataka04 Oct 2017

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

M/S LAKSHMINARAYANA MINING COMPANY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

WP/44729/2016HC Karnataka04 Oct 2017

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

WP/43924/2016HC Karnataka04 Oct 2017

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

M/S HARE KRISHNA METALICS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

WP/44271/2016HC Karnataka04 Oct 2017

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

M/S. SRI SHIV SHAKTI STEEL & ALLOYS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

WP/52678/2016HC Karnataka04 Oct 2017

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration