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.

371 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 37(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,960Mumbai2,829Bangalore1,139Chennai577Kolkata496Ahmedabad493Hyderabad372Karnataka371Pune347Jaipur305Surat246Chandigarh221Indore193Cochin179Rajkot74Visakhapatnam69Lucknow61Calcutta58SC57Cuttack54Telangana49Raipur47Nagpur42Amritsar34Agra29Guwahati28Dehradun18Jodhpur17Jabalpur11Ranchi10Varanasi9Rajasthan9Allahabad8Panaji7Kerala6Patna6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Orissa4DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Addition to Income48Section 26030Section 92C7Section 260A7Section 1487Deduction7Section 356Transfer Pricing6Section 92B5

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 adjustments 112,20,92,081/- Claim of bogus transportation expenses of iron ore 40% attributable towards illegal mining. 86,43,47,335/- Disallowance of expenses claimed under section 37(1

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Showing 1–20 of 371 · Page 1 of 19

...
Section 37(1)5
Disallowance5
Section 1434
ITA/211/2009HC Karnataka25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arms’ length price. As per the return filed the tax payable was Rs.48,38,27,302/-. The assessee also claimed TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1

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

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arms’ length price. As per the return filed the tax payable was Rs.48,38,27,302/-. The assessee also claimed TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

WP/11618/2016HC Karnataka27 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

Section 142(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 263Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer” means a Joint Commissioner or Deputy 23 Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner authorized by the Board to perform all or any of the functions of an Assessing Officer specified in sections 92C and 92D in respect of any person or class of persons. 144C. (1) xxxxx (2) xxxxx (b) file his objections, if any, to such variation with

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA/133/2007HC Karnataka23 Aug 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 260

price of transfer for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HH and 80I of the Act? A-10. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that excise duty and sales tax should not be included in the total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act? 6. In all the three appeals, the following question

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

ITA/537/2015HC Karnataka25 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

37. Section 92-CA of the Act envisages that the Assessing Authority, if he considers necessary or expedient so to do, he can with the previous approval of the Principal Commissioner, refer the computation of ‘Arm’s Length Price’ to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), another Departmental Authority only, who is supposed to have special knowledge and training for Date

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

ITA/536/2015HC Karnataka25 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

37. Section 92-CA of the Act envisages that the Assessing Authority, if he considers necessary or expedient so to do, he can with the previous approval of the Principal Commissioner, refer the computation of ‘Arm’s Length Price’ to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), another Departmental Authority only, who is supposed to have special knowledge and training for Date

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/653/2013HC Karnataka11 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260Section 260ASection 37

transferred to the trust at the face value and the employees of the assessee were allowed to exercise the option to buy the shares within the time prescribed under the scheme subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein. The assessee claimed the difference of market price and allotment price as a discount and claimed the same as an expenditure under

M/S CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(2)

ITA/1397/2006HC Karnataka12 Nov 2013

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 143Section 260

37(1) of the Act. However, the authorities have looked at the entire matter in a very narrow compass and have not kept the settled law on the point and in fact, the Tribunal has gone in a tangent and has denied the relief to the - 21 - assessee. Therefore, he submitted that these orders require to be set aside

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/20040/2019HC Karnataka25 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 254Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer during the proceeding for assessment, reassessment made. The period as specified in sub- section (1)(2) & (3) shall be further extended by 12 months. 153(5) To give effect to the order of the higher authorities i.e. CIT (A), ITAT, HC and SC orders To give effect to an order passed by higher authorities other than those

MR. BINEESH KODIYERI vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

WP/13261/2020HC Karnataka16 Mar 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No. 13261 Of 2020 (Gm-Res) Between: Mr. Bineesh Kodiyeri S/O Mr. Kodiyeri Balakrishnan Aged About 37 Years Kootamvilla Lane, Maruthankuzhi Thiruvananthapuram District Kerala State – 695013

Section 19Section 482

transfers to Mohammed Anoop. Further: 3.12.9. There is no interest payment by Shri. Mohammed Anoop on loan taken from the Petitioner. 3.12.10. The loan is stated to be taken by Petitioner in the name of M/s. Old Coffee House Restaurant as a Business loan, and he is paying huge interest on service of this loan. Petitioner however, never

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ING VYSYA BANK LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part,

ITA/2886/2005HC Karnataka06 Jun 2012

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

Section 143Section 260Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(2)Section 80M

37(1) of the Act. 12. The Appellate Authority having remanded the question to the Assessing Officer for reexamination particularly on the aspect of expenditure incurred by the company on the employees who had accompanied the guests and delegates, the assessee having carried the matter further to the Tribunal on this question also and the Tribunal having opined in favour

SMT. M R PRABHAVATHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WTA/1/2019HC Karnataka04 Mar 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Election Petition No.1 Of 2019 Connected With Election Petition No.2 Of 2019

Section 81

transferred on 11.03.2019 and the same was not intimated to this respondent, therefore, there is no intention to suppress any bank balance. He further denied the allegations in paragraph XIV(d) as false in respect of amount paid through DD for purchasing the agricultural properties. He further denies the contentions in paragraph

THE MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., vs. SRI A CHANDRASEKHAR

WP/15230/2022HC Karnataka17 Oct 2022

Bench: G.NARENDAR,P.N.DESAI

price fixed under any law, etc. 29. Deficiency of service is defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the following manner: “2. (1)(g) ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time

M/S TELCO CONSTRUCTION CO.LTD vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

ITA/101/2016HC Karnataka20 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260Section 260ASection 37(1)

price and the 5 royalty was required to be paid in respect of each of new Hitachi licence products sold by the assessee for a period of 7 years from the date of commencement of commercial production or ten years from the execution of the agreement, whichever is earlier. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 30.12.2011 inter alia concluded

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S LUWA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

ITA/296/2017HC Karnataka29 Jun 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 148Section 260

1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. T.N.C. SRIDHAR, ADV.) AND: M/S. LUWA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED NO.95, INDUSTRIAL SUB-URB 2ND STAGE, TUMKUR ROAD YESHWANTHPURA BANGALORE-560022 PAN: No. AAA CL3106 B. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SURYANARAYANA T, ADV.,) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED

M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

WP/43206/2018HC Karnataka21 Apr 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 96

Price Advisory Committee which has been approved by the Board in its 356th meeting held on 20.09.2018, that the compensation shall be awarded at Rs.50 Lakhs per acre on consent and if the land owners are not agreeable for such consent awards, the award shall be made in accordance with law. The Board has filed objections to the said application

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/53718/2017HC Karnataka21 Apr 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 96

Price Advisory Committee which has been approved by the Board in its 356th meeting held on 20.09.2018, that the compensation shall be awarded at Rs.50 Lakhs per acre on consent and if the land owners are not agreeable for such consent awards, the award shall be made in accordance with law. The Board has filed objections to the said application

M/S SREE JAYALAKSHMI TEXTILES vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION

WP/22348/2015HC Karnataka15 Dec 2015

Bench: The Date Fixed For Sale Of Transfer & In Such Event The Secured Asset Shall Not Be Sold & That Once The Auction Sale Process Is Commenced & The Property Is Auctioned & Sold On The Date Fixed For Sale & The Sale In Favour Of The Highest Bidder Is Confirmed & 25%

Section 13(8)

transfer is to be effected. Having regard to such a valuable right of a debtor having been embedded in the said sub- section, it will have to be stated in uncontroverted terms that the said provision has been engrafted in the SARFAESI Act primarily with a view to protect the rights of a borrower, inasmuch as, such an ownership right

M/S SREE JAYALAKSHMI TEXTILES vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION

WP/29362/2015HC Karnataka15 Dec 2015

Bench: The Date Fixed For Sale Of Transfer & In Such Event The Secured Asset Shall Not Be Sold & That Once The Auction Sale Process Is Commenced & The Property Is Auctioned & Sold On The Date Fixed For Sale & The Sale In Favour Of The Highest Bidder Is Confirmed & 25%

Section 13(8)

transfer is to be effected. Having regard to such a valuable right of a debtor having been embedded in the said sub- section, it will have to be stated in uncontroverted terms that the said provision has been engrafted in the SARFAESI Act primarily with a view to protect the rights of a borrower, inasmuch as, such an ownership right