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.

309 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 73(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,567Delhi1,532Bangalore519Karnataka309Chennai306Ahmedabad279Kolkata245Hyderabad242Jaipur192Surat182Pune181Chandigarh159Indore155Cochin105Calcutta54Visakhapatnam44Raipur39Rajkot32Cuttack30Guwahati26Lucknow25SC22Telangana21Nagpur17Jodhpur16Rajasthan8Agra6Panaji5Varanasi5Amritsar4Dehradun3Ranchi2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Orissa2Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1Jabalpur1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Addition to Income58Section 26020Section 14A4Section 1002

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 309 · Page 1 of 16

...

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

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

price of which exceeds on e crore rupees; or (d) Fraudulently availing of or attempt to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty provided under this Act, if the amount of drawback or exemption from duty exceeds fifty lakh rupees. WP No. 13261 of 2020 65 (7) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (6), all other offences under

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

Section 33A of RP Act and 106 he has committed corrupt practice of bribery as contemplated under Sections 123(1)(A), 123(1)(B), 123(7), 123(7)(b), 123(vii)(d), 123(7)(h) and Section 123(8), 123(3), 3A and 123(6) of R.P. Act ? The petitioner in E.P. No.2/2019 has contended that respondent No.1 committed corrupt

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. NARAYANAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/14620/2014HC Karnataka30 Sept 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

73 (SC) :1975)1 SCR 121. Hence there is no longer any scope for the 84 petitioners to contend that the State Legislature had no competence to provide for the levy of additional sales tax. The nature and identity of the additional sales tax imposed by the 1970 Act have not been in any way altered by the impugned

SRI M MADHAVA GOWDA vs. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

WP/27825/2014HC Karnataka30 Sept 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

73 (SC) :1975)1 SCR 121. Hence there is no longer any scope for the 84 petitioners to contend that the State Legislature had no competence to provide for the levy of additional sales tax. The nature and identity of the additional sales tax imposed by the 1970 Act have not been in any way altered by the impugned

FEDERATION OF WINES MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/13078/2014HC Karnataka30 Sept 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

73 (SC) :1975)1 SCR 121. Hence there is no longer any scope for the 84 petitioners to contend that the State Legislature had no competence to provide for the levy of additional sales tax. The nature and identity of the additional sales tax imposed by the 1970 Act have not been in any way altered by the impugned

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/512/2017HC Karnataka23 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 2(22)(e)Section 254Section 260

transfer of the reserves and surplus to the holding company by avoiding the payment of tax and therefore it will be treated as a colourable device. There are two aspects in this transaction- (i) It is a simple and plain transaction of buy back of shares without having any dispute of price then the same is beyond the scope

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

WP/16692/2022HC Karnataka16 Dec 2022

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

Section 281BSection 281ESection 92C

transfer pricing adjustment. Pursuant to the said order, the Assessing Officer issued a Notice under Section 142(1) of the I.T.Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19 inter alia calling upon the petitioner to show cause, as to why payment of royalty to the foreign entity i.e., Qualcomm and Beijing Xiaomi Mobile should not be disallowed. On 10.08.2022, petitioner submitted

SRI SRIDHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WA/3356/2016HC Karnataka22 Mar 2017

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

73 (SC) :1975)1 SCR 121. Hence there is no longer any scope for the 60 petitioners to contend that the State Legislature had no competence to provide for the levy of additional sales tax. The nature and identity of the additional sales tax imposed by the 1970 Act have not been in any way altered by the impugned

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

Appeal is dismissed with costs

ITA/70/2007HC Karnataka26 Sept 2012

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

Section 100

73. The term ‘Sale’ is defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, as under: “Sale” defined.—‘‘Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part- paid and part-promised. Sale how made.—Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards

M/S SSJV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. M/S ALLAHABAD BANK

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

WA/545/2020HC Karnataka29 Jan 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

Section 17Section 31Section 4

price is less than eight times the net annual income of the land. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to lands granted under Section 77. -: 80 :- 81. Sections 79-A, 79-B, and 80 not to apply in certain cases.- (1) Nothing in Section 79-A or Section 79-B or Section 80 shall apply

SRI U M RAMESH RAO vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

WA/538/2020HC Karnataka29 Jan 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

Section 17Section 31Section 4

price is less than eight times the net annual income of the land. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to lands granted under Section 77. -: 80 :- 81. Sections 79-A, 79-B, and 80 not to apply in certain cases.- (1) Nothing in Section 79-A or Section 79-B or Section 80 shall apply

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

73,929/- [c] Interest on long term finance to infrastructure companies u/s. 10[23G] Rs. 95,82,88,460/- TOTAL Rs.304,49,89,835/- 3. The assessee contended that “since they have not incurred any expenditure for earning aforesaid income, the question of expenditure relating to these income being added back to the taxable income would not arise

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

ITA/27/2019HC Karnataka18 Jun 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 260ASection 263Section 32

price for which it is sold, so, however, that where the actual cost of a motor car is, in accordance with the proviso to clause (1) of section 43, taken to be twenty-five thousand rupees, the moneys payable in respect of such motor car shall be taken to be a sum which bears to the amount for which

SMT. S. JALAJA vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the result, writ appeals are allowed

WA/1105/2019HC Karnataka24 Aug 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 4

73. SRI. L. BASAVARAJU C/O ANANDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.428, 7TH "A" CROSS HEBBAL ST STAGE, MYSURU 570016 (SITE NO.303, SY. NO.49) 74. SRI P SRINIVASA C/O ANANDA RESIDING AT NO.428, 7TH A CROSS, 76 HEBBAL 1ST STAGE, MYSURU 570016. 75. SRI RAGHAVENDRA RAO S/O LATE RAMA RAO, RESIDING AT NO.1934, 6TH MAIN, 28TH CROSS, D GROUP

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PVT LTD

ITA/29/2019HC Karnataka10 Jun 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Srishananda Civil Revision Petition No.29/2019 Between

Section 115Section 37(2)

price realized by sale of flats.  The further observation of civil court that the observation of arbitrator about the firm being not impleaded in proceedings is questioned by Petitioner is unsustainable in law. There is no dispute between the firm and the partners. A firm is only a compendious name of all the partners. When all the partners

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

73 4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BELLARY DIVISION BELLARY-583 101 5. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE BY ITS CHAIRMAN-DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY “KHANIJA BHAVAN”, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 4; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG

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

73 4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BELLARY DIVISION BELLARY-583 101 5. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE BY ITS CHAIRMAN-DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY “KHANIJA BHAVAN”, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 4; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG