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.

79 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Transfer Pricingclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi632Mumbai517Bangalore175Chennai141Jaipur126Hyderabad119Kolkata79Chandigarh63Ahmedabad63Indore41Rajkot28Pune27Raipur25Surat24Lucknow22Guwahati19Amritsar18Nagpur15Jodhpur12Cuttack11Dehradun8Agra7Patna5Karnataka5SC2Telangana2Visakhapatnam2Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 147116Section 14892Section 26386Section 143(3)81Addition to Income56Section 115J32Section 143(1)28Condonation of Delay28Section 92C

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

ITA 77/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.77/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) At & S India (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

For Appellant: Smt. Rituparna Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37Section 92C

u/s 92B and rule 10B redundant. This is patently an unacceptable position having no sanction of the Indian transfer pricing law. Borrowing a contrary mandate of the TP provisions of other countries and reading it into our provisions is not permissible. The requirement under our law is to compute the income from an international transaction between two AEs having regard

Showing 1–20 of 79 · Page 1 of 4

26
Reopening of Assessment24
Section 13220
Disallowance15

M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD.,SILIGURI vs. PCIT-1, , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

ITA 112/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 263

Transfer Pricing Order passed u/s. 92CA(3) on 30.10.2018 13. Notice u/s. 142(1) issued by the AO on 26.11.2018 14. Order passed u/s. 14393) by the AO on 28.12.2018 13. Before we controvert to the legal issue held in favour of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A), let us look into section 153 which reads as under: “Time

I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

ITA 2652/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 263

Transfer Pricing Order passed u/s. 92CA(3) on 30.10.2018 13. Notice u/s. 142(1) issued by the AO on 26.11.2018 14. Order passed u/s. 14393) by the AO on 28.12.2018 13. Before we controvert to the legal issue held in favour of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A), let us look into section 153 which reads as under: “Time

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

ITA 69/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am At&S India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571 301 Kolkata – 700 069. Mysore District, Karnataka, India "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 2930 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha & Ms. Rituparna Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 37(1)Section 92C

u/s 92B and rule 10B redundant. This is patently an unacceptable position having no sanction of the Indian transfer pricing law. Borrowing a contrary mandate of the TP provisions of other countries and reading it into our provisions is not permissible. The requirement under our law is to compute the income from an international transaction between two AEs having regard

M/S. EMTA COAL LTD.,( ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS M/S. EASTERN MINERAL & TRADING AGENCY ) ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(1) , KOLAKTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2422/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Emta Coal Ltd…………………………………………..............................…….............Appellant 5B, Nandlal Basu Sarani Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aacce 3506 G]

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

147 is bad in law, since no fresh reopening of assessment proceeding can be initiated on the same reasons on which the assessment assessment proceeding can be initiated on the same reasons on which the assessment assessment proceeding can be initiated on the same reasons on which the assessment was reopened earlier in the first round. was reopened earlier

M/S CLASSIC FLOUR AND FOOD PROCESSING PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-11(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 765 & 766/Kol/2014 are allowed while ITA

ITA 764/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

147 has not been satisfied. We therefore hold that reassessments orders for A.Y.2007-08 and 2008-09 dated 30.12.2011 were invalid. Consequently order passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 21.03.2014 for A.Y.2007- 08 and 2008-09 are also held to be invalid and quashed. Thus the appeals being ITA No.765 and 766/Kol/2014 are allowed. 17. As far as this appeal

M/S GOLDEN VINCOM PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 143/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 263

147 has not been satisfied. We therefore hold that reassessments orders for A.Y.2007-08 and 2008- 09 dated 30.12.2011 were invalid. Consequently order passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 21.03.2014 for A.Y.2007-08 and 2008-09 are also held to be invalid and quashed. Thus the appeals being ITA No.765 and 766/Kol/2014 are allowed. 17. As far as this appeal

MADHUBAN DEALERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MADHUBAN DEALERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 273/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 68

147 read with 144 of the Act, the Ld. AR stated that before forming reason to believe on the basis of such information there has to be application of mind in an objective manner by the AO and only thereafter, there should be formation of belief. In the last of his argument, the Ld. AR relied on the following

WITZENMANN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1423/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1423/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Witzenmann India Private Limited....……….........…..........….…… Appellant Nsc Building, Plot No.12, Block – Aq, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-91. [Pan: Aaach7739L] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata.......….....…….............…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Arun Chhabra, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 16, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessment Dated Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Pursuant To The Transfer Pricing Adjustment. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Impugned Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 12.04.2019 U/S 143(3)/147 Read With Section 144C & 144C(5) Of The Act Was Wrong & Illegal & Void Ab Initio. The Ld. Counsel Has Invited Our Attention To The Following Sequence Of Events: Particulars In Case Of The Appellant

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) pursuant to the transfer pricing adjustment. 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 12.04.2019 u/s 143(3)/147 read with section 144C & 144C(5) of the Act was wrong and illegal

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRD COMMODITIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 2277/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

Section 132Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

u/s. 143(3), the proviso to Sec. 147 further mandates that no action shall be taken under Section 147 after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year

NOMURA RESEARCH INSTITUTE FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1548/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 92CSection 92D

Transfer Pricing. Accordingly, considering the CBDTs instruction no.3/2016 dated 10.03.2016, the then AO passed an assessment order u/s. 143[3] of the l.T. Act, 1961 at an assessed income of Rs. 4,31,54,335/- on 31.08.2016." This amply clarifies that the final assessment order passed on 31.08.2016 was in compliance of instruction No. 3/2016 dated 10.03.2016 after careful consideration

AMRABATHI INVESTRA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 231/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

transferring the money to the beneficiaries in form of share capital/ share premium/ unsecured loan. The fact that assessee has received Rs. 14.85 crore from these dubious parties on sell of shares oflittle known companies gives enough reason to the AO to believe that income has escaped assessment. Receiving money on sale of penny stock from entry operators instead

ACIT (OSD), WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRABATHI INVESTRA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 365/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

transferring the money to the beneficiaries in form of share capital/ share premium/ unsecured loan. The fact that assessee has received Rs. 14.85 crore from these dubious parties on sell of shares oflittle known companies gives enough reason to the AO to believe that income has escaped assessment. Receiving money on sale of penny stock from entry operators instead

M/S BUCYRUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 616/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Manoneet Dalal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Das, CIT, ld.DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) in respect of the International Transactions carried out by the assessee. e) The assessee co-operated with the proceedings of the TPO and order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 28.1.2014 making an adjustment

PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., [NOW KNOWN AS PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS LLP],KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1985/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata Price Waterhouse & Co, Kolkata (Now Versus Known As Price Waterhouse & Co Chartered Accountants Llp)

For Appellant: Shri C.S Agarwal, Sr. Adv., K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Bikash KumarFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 28Section 44A

transferred in their accounts. In view of the aforesaid there is no merit in your objections. Considering the reason recorded by the AO u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act, the objections raised by you are not acceptable. Hence the objection raised by you against the reopening of the assessment is hereby rejected.” 8 Price Waterhouse & Co. (now known as Price

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/KOL/2008[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 8Section 80HSection 80I

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147/148 has been initiated in utter disregard of the express provision of the Act and thus the order passed u/s. 147 is bad in law. 2(a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in holding that I.T.A. No. 398/KOL./2008 Assessment year

DCIT, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, AAYAKAR BHAWAN BHANUPATH ROAD NEAR WHITE HALL GANGTOK vs. HEINZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, SIKKIM

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1137/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 35Section 80I

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.48,44,14,000/-, disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) & 35(2) of Rs.4,59,51,713/-, disallowance of ESOP/RSU of Rs.1,23,58,072/- and restriction or deduction claimed u/s 80IC to Rs.102,02,10,934/- as against claim of Rs.102,80,88,016/-. While initiating the reassessment proceedings, it was noticed that

M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 617/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Mawheet Dalal, Advocate & Shri Gunjan Khanna, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 148Section 40Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Authority, there was no return pending for consideration by him and therefore, the very reference was bad. Even otherwise, the said TPO did not find fault with the adjudication of determining arm’s length price by the Assessing Authority. In those circumstances, the Commissioner committed an error in exercising his power u/s

M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1051/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Mawheet Dalal, Advocate & Shri Gunjan Khanna, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 148Section 40Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Authority, there was no return pending for consideration by him and therefore, the very reference was bad. Even otherwise, the said TPO did not find fault with the adjudication of determining arm’s length price by the Assessing Authority. In those circumstances, the Commissioner committed an error in exercising his power u/s

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 599/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Mawheet Dalal, Advocate & Shri Gunjan Khanna, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 148Section 40Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Authority, there was no return pending for consideration by him and therefore, the very reference was bad. Even otherwise, the said TPO did not find fault with the adjudication of determining arm’s length price by the Assessing Authority. In those circumstances, the Commissioner committed an error in exercising his power u/s