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.

201 results for “transfer pricing”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,057Delhi915Chennai363Jaipur225Bangalore210Kolkata201Hyderabad199Ahmedabad189Chandigarh151Cochin124Indore114Karnataka74Pune52Rajkot50Visakhapatnam47Calcutta38Surat37Nagpur34Amritsar23Lucknow21Telangana20Jodhpur20Guwahati18Raipur17SC16Cuttack12Agra8Varanasi6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Allahabad3Jabalpur3Rajasthan2Orissa2Kerala2Punjab & Haryana1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)74Addition to Income58Section 14A47Section 25037Deduction37Disallowance37Section 115J35Section 4025Section 6824

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

ITA 1777/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

deposited the employees contribution before filing of Return of Income. Therefore, the assessee succeeds and we allow the appeal of the assessee". M/s. Kesoram Industries Ltd., AYs 2012-13, 2014-15 &2015-16 6. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and this Tribunal, we are of the view that

Showing 1–20 of 201 · Page 1 of 11

...
Section 201(1)24
Depreciation19
Section 80I18

M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

ITA 1650/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

deposited the employees contribution before filing of Return of Income. Therefore, the assessee succeeds and we allow the appeal of the assessee". M/s. Kesoram Industries Ltd., AYs 2012-13, 2014-15 &2015-16 6. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and this Tribunal, we are of the view that

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

ITA 1197/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

deposited the employees contribution before filing of Return of Income. Therefore, the assessee succeeds and we allow the appeal of the assessee". M/s. Kesoram Industries Ltd., AYs 2012-13, 2014-15 &2015-16 6. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and this Tribunal, we are of the view that

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

ITA 1864/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

deposited the employees contribution before filing of Return of Income. Therefore, the assessee succeeds and we allow the appeal of the assessee". M/s. Kesoram Industries Ltd., AYs 2012-13, 2014-15 &2015-16 6. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and this Tribunal, we are of the view that

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS FERRITES LTD., (SINCE MERGED WITH M/S. EPCOS INDIA P. LTD.,), NADIA

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed, except other ground no

ITA 1597/KOL/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L.Saini, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Rituparna SinhaFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(7)Section 40A(9)Section 43BSection 80H

cash profit margin ratio in TNMM, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) to delete the ALP adjustment of Rs.l0,02,37,000/­ for A.Y.2003­04 and ALP adjustment of Rs.5,19,77,000/­for A.Y.2002­03. 24. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue ( in respect of transfer pricing grounds) are dismissed. 25. Now, we shall take

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1854/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) on account of corporate guarantee furnished by the Appellant to a bank on behalf of the Appellant’s step-down subsidiary in Cyprus, Kahutara Holdings Limited (hereinafter referred as “KHL”). The value of the corporate guarantee given by the Appellant was USD 13.5 million. 2.2 The facts pertaining to the corporate guarantee are that the Appellant

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1899/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) on account of corporate guarantee furnished by the Appellant to a bank on behalf of the Appellant’s step-down subsidiary in Cyprus, Kahutara Holdings Limited (hereinafter referred as “KHL”). The value of the corporate guarantee given by the Appellant was USD 13.5 million. 2.2 The facts pertaining to the corporate guarantee are that the Appellant

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 498/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

cash deposits made during demonetisation period. These additions have been challenged through the following grounds of appeal.: “1. FOR THAT the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as "the DRP") erred in confirming the transaction of corporate guarantee extended by the Appellant to EIH Flight Services Ltd. Mauritius, (hereinafter referred to as "the AE") as international transaction without appreciating that

EIH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 181/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

cash deposits made during demonetisation period. These additions have been challenged through the following grounds of appeal.: “1. FOR THAT the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as "the DRP") erred in confirming the transaction of corporate guarantee extended by the Appellant to EIH Flight Services Ltd. Mauritius, (hereinafter referred to as "the AE") as international transaction without appreciating that

M/S. BATA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 327/KOL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna,CIT
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(6)(va)Section 43B

deposited y the appellant before the due date of submission of its Return, it will be entitled to deduction - vide the Apex Court decision in CIT vs Vinay Cement Ltd. (213-CTR-268) and CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319-ITR- 306), Delhi High Court decisions in the cases of CIT vs P. M. Electronics

DCIT, CIRCLE -2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BATA INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 365/KOL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna,CIT
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(6)(va)Section 43B

deposited y the appellant before the due date of submission of its Return, it will be entitled to deduction - vide the Apex Court decision in CIT vs Vinay Cement Ltd. (213-CTR-268) and CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319-ITR- 306), Delhi High Court decisions in the cases of CIT vs P. M. Electronics

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 2142/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 2143/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 496/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 497/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

AMBO AGRO PRODUCTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE PCIT, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 676/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50Section 50B

Deposit Account maintained with UCO Bank at Flagship Corporate Branch, 3, N. S. Road, Kolkata-700 001 (the UCO Bank) on simultaneous receipt of Bank Guarantee No. 1784IGFIN009408 dated 02 September 2008 by UCO Bank (Bank Guarantee) in favour of the Transferee, for an amount not less than the Advance Payment and on the terms set out in the Bank

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed.” 4. Both the ld. representatives have submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the above decision of the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for earlier assessment years. Therefore, respectfully following the same

ANIL KUMAR PAIK ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 145Section 250Section 43C

depositing on behalf of its members the same declared in the VAT return. (vi) So far as the addition for unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act of Rs.1.65 Crores is concerned, he submitted that the assessee has taken a loan from M/s. Gitanjali Hotel and Inn Private Limited (in short GHIPL) and the same has not been

SHRI BHIKARI CHARAN PRADHAN,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

price fixed on that day. The AO in the remand report also found fault with the bills produced by the assessee showing the sale consideration of Rs.2,02,199/- by finding fault with the bill nos. We note that according to AO, during remand proceeding, the entire bills were produced before him in respect to sale of jewellery

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S R.P.COMTRADE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 208/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 207/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G.H. Sema, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 92C

transfer pricing addition of Rs.5,73,75,965/- made by the TPO in relation to the purchases made from AE, PLG Singapore. After considering the rival submissions, it is observed that the issue involved in this ground is identical to the Ground Nos. 1 to 3 of Revenue’s appeal in A.Y. 2012-13. Following our conclusion drawn