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.

3 results for “transfer pricing”+ Carry Forward of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,549Delhi1,127Kolkata499Bangalore421Ahmedabad414Pune407Chennai232Jaipur211Karnataka207Chandigarh182Hyderabad119Cochin109Indore79Visakhapatnam75Rajkot72Surat63Raipur42Nagpur42Calcutta38Lucknow34Amritsar27Cuttack24Guwahati24SC17Telangana16Varanasi10Jodhpur9Agra7Jabalpur7Ranchi7Panaji5Dehradun4Kerala3Rajasthan2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Allahabad1Punjab & Haryana1Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 144C5Section 143(3)5Section 2633Section 402Section 352Section 92C2Deduction2Disallowance2Addition to Income2

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTD

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated

ITA/44/2017HC Kerala22 Sept 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

For Appellant: M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTDFor Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 35Section 43ASection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer-1, Kochi, made the order under Section 92CA(3) ITA No.44/2017 -3- of the Act. The Assessing Officer through Annexure-B draft assessment order dated 28.03.2014 proposed to finalize the income tax return of the assessee assessed total income as Rs.481,78,02,530/-. The assessee raised objections to the draft assessment order dated 28.03.2014. The issues

M/S. APPOLLO TYRES LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/249/2015HC Kerala26 Aug 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

Section 40

forward contract. In other words, a notional gain is derived by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, in the draft assessment order under Section 144C of the I.T.A. No. 249/2015 -19- Act, disallowed the said claim and the disallowance was considered by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) as objection no.11. The DRP and the Assessing Officer considered that the assessee rests

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.APOLLO TYRES LIMITED

ITA/36/2017HC Kerala04 Aug 2021

Bench: This Court. The Issues Canvassed In The Appeal Relate To Assessment Year 2010-11. Prefaced In The Beginning, The Issues Raised By The Revenue Arise Under Section 144C Read With Section 143(3) Vis-A-Vis Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short 'The Act').

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 35Section 40

carrying out the assessment in terms of the directions issued by DRP. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 18.02.2015 in Annexure-D made the assessment in terms of directions issued in Annexure- C order dated 26.12.2014. Though it is not germane for adjudicating the controversy arising in the appeal, but it is I.T.A. No.36/2017 -4- contextual to refer