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.

5 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 144C(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,950Mumbai1,753Bangalore842Hyderabad279Pune267Kolkata215Chennai190Ahmedabad132Visakhapatnam33Chandigarh30Cochin29Jaipur29Karnataka21Indore16Rajkot15Dehradun15Surat12Cuttack8Kerala5Telangana4Panaji4Amritsar3Guwahati3SC3Calcutta2Raipur2Jabalpur1Lucknow1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)10Section 144C6Section 92C4Section 36(1)(iii)4Addition to Income4Section 353Section 2633Deduction3Disallowance3

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

144C and on another by Section 263 of the Act. For the above reasons, the substantial questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. ITA No.36/2017 stands dismissed. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE jjj I.T.A. No.36/2017 -16- APPENDIX OF ITA 36/2017 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE ORDER U/S.92CA(3) DATED 29/01/2014

M/S. JOYALUKKAS INDIA LTD, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Transfer Pricing3
Section 402
Section 144C(5)2

In the result, the appeal fails and the substantial questions

ITA/10/2019HC Kerala21 Dec 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: M/S.JOYALUKKAS INDIA LTDFor Respondent: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

Transfer I.T.A. No.10/2019 3 Pricing Officer and resulted in a draft order dated 25.03.2014 under Section 143(3) read with 144C

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI -I vs. M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD

ITA/43/2017HC Kerala31 Aug 2021

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

For Appellant: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI -IFor Respondent: M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 80Section 92C

Section 35(2AB) in respect of the salary paid on outdoor R & D facility without qualification of the DSIR and that too following conflicting case laws. 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is the Hon'ble ITAT right in law and fact in ITA No.43 of 2017 3 holding that DG Power Generation Units

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

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 its claim by referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd.2