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.

13 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 3clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,527Mumbai5,364Bangalore2,048Chennai1,147Kolkata977Ahmedabad827Karnataka803Hyderabad802Pune790Jaipur482Surat328Chandigarh308Indore288Cochin244Visakhapatnam145Rajkot142SC132Telangana108Lucknow92Nagpur89Cuttack88Calcutta76Raipur72Amritsar55Agra38Dehradun38Guwahati38Jodhpur38Jabalpur18A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN17Ranchi15Rajasthan14Kerala13Varanasi13Panaji13Allahabad12Patna11Orissa9Punjab & Haryana4Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1S.B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)10Section 144C6Addition to Income5Section 92C4Section 36(1)(iii)4Deduction4Section 143(2)3Section 353Section 2633

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

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 Pricing Officer was made by the 1st respondent to determine whether the international transactions have been made at Arm’s Length Price in accordance with Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act. 3

Transfer Pricing3
Disallowance3
Section 402

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

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

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 FOR AY 2010-11 PASSED

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT.GRACY BABU,

ITA/54/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions of Section 153C of the I.T. Act. Placing

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

ITA/47/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions of Section 153C of the I.T. Act. Placing

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. GRACY BABU,

ITA/48/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions of Section 153C of the I.T. Act. Placing

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

ITA/56/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions of Section 153C of the I.T. Act. Placing

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

ITA/46/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions of Section 153C of the I.T. Act. Placing

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

3 (2010) 322 ITR 180 (SC) I.T.A. No. 249/2015 -22- Woodward's case [2009] 312 ITR 254, the court observed thus (page 272): "... what triggers the adjustment in the actual cost of the assets, in terms of the unamended section 43A of the 1961 Act is the change in the rate of exchange subsequent to the acquisition of asset

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES & INDUSTRIES LTD.

ITA/179/2014HC Kerala28 Oct 2021

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

Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 260A

3) Whether such user of the land was for a long period or whether it was of a temporary character or by way of a stop- gap arrangement? (4) Whether the income derived from the agricultural operations carried on in the land bore any rational proportion to the investment made in purchasing the land? (5) Whether, the permission under Section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

ITA/18/2017HC Kerala23 Jun 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 143(2)Section 260A

price. The assessee acts as a post-office. There is no relationship of Principal and Agent between the assessee and his retail buyers. The retail sellers did not provide service to the assessee thus entitling for receipt of commission/incentive from the assessee. He places strong reliance on Section 194G of the Act and argues that the basic ingredients warranting application

SHRI JOSEPH THANNIKOTTU KORAH vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

ITA/310/2019HC Kerala25 Mar 2022

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

Section 143(2)

Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued. The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs.30,00,000/- made in the assessee’s bank account with ICICI bank, Kollam on 20.1.2011. The assessee submitted that the sum represented the sale receipts of land belonging to his wife, Smt. Saly Joseph, who had transferred