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.

43 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi436Mumbai320Jaipur158Hyderabad113Bangalore112Chennai63Ahmedabad52Kolkata43Indore38Rajkot37Chandigarh28Cochin25Cuttack18Guwahati16Agra14Surat14Raipur12Pune9Visakhapatnam8Nagpur7Patna6Lucknow6Amritsar5Karnataka4Varanasi2Allahabad1Telangana1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)48Addition to Income28Survey u/s 133A19Section 133A18Long Term Capital Gains18Section 6817Capital Gains14Section 13112Section 20112

I.TO (TDS) WD - 58(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S METRO DIARY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 852/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap Am & Shri N.V.Vasudevan Jm ]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Biswas, JCIT Sr.DR
Section 194Section 194DSection 194HSection 201(1)Section 44A

price at which they vests and is transferred to the concessionaires. The sale is subject to conditions, and stipulations. This by itself does not show and establish principal and agent relationship. The supervision and control required in case of agency is missing. 13. It is irrelevant that the concessionaires were operating from the booths owned by the Dairy and were

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3

Section 201(1)12
Section 194H12
Section 25011

I.T.O (TDS) WD - 58(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S METRO DIARY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 853/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap Am & Shri N.V.Vasudevan Jm ]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Biswas, JCIT Sr.DR
Section 194Section 194DSection 194HSection 201(1)Section 44A

price at which they vests and is transferred to the concessionaires. The sale is subject to conditions, and stipulations. This by itself does not show and establish principal and agent relationship. The supervision and control required in case of agency is missing. 13. It is irrelevant that the concessionaires were operating from the booths owned by the Dairy and were

M/S. SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (TDS) CIRCLE - 59, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1813/KOL/2009[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: S/Shri J. P. Khaitan & Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri R. P. Nag, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

133A of the Act i.e. the TDS survey conducted on assessee’s business premises on 13.09.2007, it was observed that the assessee did not deduct tax at source on lump sum payment made on outright purchase of music rights. The AO required the assessee to explain as to why the assessee not treated as assessee in default

SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1303/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya V/S. Acit, Circle-55, Bh-167, Salt Lake, Sector- 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Ii, Kolkata-700 016 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Aedpb 2611 R] Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 271(1)Section 28

Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt.Ltd. Vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) wherein it was held inadvertent errors in the return of income filed cannot be the basis to impose penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 4.2 The learned DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 398/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80D

price of shares as stated in the MOU, but arose due to the intervening litigation. Since the transfer could not have materialised in the absence of payment of such compensation it forms part of sale consideration. According to revenue in search assessments, sale consideration 7 8 Surya Prakash Bagla A.Yr.2010-11 remained the same although the transaction

KIRAN KOTHARI HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 35(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

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]

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 68

price rise. The Ld CIT(A) also reproduced the statement recorded in the survey proceedings. The Ld CIT(A) considering the statement held that the addition made by the AO deserves to be upheld and he accordingly upheld the same. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the addition of Rs.24

M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 277/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2016AY 2010-2011

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

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 40

133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 27.01.2010, during the course of which certain books of account and loose papers were impounded. Thereafter the return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee on 12.10.2010, wherein profit from the business of dealing in lottery tickets was shown by the assessee

ACIT, CIR.-26(1), KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. M/S FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 269/KOL/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2018AY 2010-2011

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

Section 131Section 133A

133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 27.01.2010, during the course of which certain books of account and loose papers were impounded. Thereafter the return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee on 12.10.2010, wherein profit from the business of dealing in lottery tickets was shown by the assessee

BALLARAM HANUMANDAS CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed

ITA 431/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13

Section 12ASection 133Section 35(1)(ii)

transferring the same in the form of donation through the web of financial transactions. In either case, SHG & PH was charging commission for providing the above stated accommodation entries. During survey at SHG & PH it was ascertained that assessee-trust has received donation amounting to ₹68.50 lakh from SHG & PH through banking channel against the cash provided

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANGE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1947/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 28

133A(2A) of the Act was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 25.02.2020 and subsequently, a notice u/s 201(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee for the F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to the A.Y. 2015-16 due to default in deduction of tax or failing to deduct tax towards credit of income

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1925/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 28

133A(2A) of the Act was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 25.02.2020 and subsequently, a notice u/s 201(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee for the F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to the A.Y. 2015-16 due to default in deduction of tax or failing to deduct tax towards credit of income

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. M/S PRB SECURITIES PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 211/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 211/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Prb Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcp 5425 G ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, AR
Section 143(3)

transfer of shares in the name of beneficiary cm be an 'off market transaction' or 'online transaction' and, thereafter, issue of ' preferential shares' at nominal rates or issue of bonus shares even though there is hardly any profit or business activity in these companies. • Enquiries further revels that the funds for the purchase of shares which are off- loaded

JALAN CARBONS & CHEMICLAS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR 4(2), KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal& Amit Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45(2)Section 45(4)

Section 45(4) of the Act which has no relevance to the facts of this case relating to transfer of shares onactual sale thereof. 5) That the Learned Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming theaforesaid disallowance of Rs.1,04,40,635 on various findings and observations whichare contrary to law and facts of the case and are therefore

ITO(TDS),WD-58(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PACEMAN SALES PROMOTION PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1296/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rajaram Choudhury, CA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Tanuj Kr. Neogi, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

transfer of the property, but it is one for work and labour. 7.2. We find that the provisions of section 194C of the Act specify that any person responsible for paying any sum to any contractor for carrying out any work was ITA No. 1296/Kol/2012 & 6 & CO No.12/Kol/2013 C-AM M/s.Paceman Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd required to deduct

ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SHEE SEN LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (Ground No

ITA 1044/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1044/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) I.T.O, Ward-12(4), Kolkata Vs. M/S Shee Sen Leather Pvt. Ltd. 114/C, Matheswartolla Road, Aayakarbhavan (7Th Floor), P-7, Kolkata – 700 046. Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 3938 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit(Dr) Respondent By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate & V.N. Purohit, Fca सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18/10/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.111/Xii/Cir-12/13-14, Dated 19.02.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.03.2013. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: “1. That Is The Facts & In Law Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Amounting To Rs.29,84,786/- Made The Ao On Account Of Difference In Valuation In Closing Stock & G.P. On Unaccounted Sales Of Chemicals Which Was Detected On The Basis Of Findings Of Survey U/S 133A.

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate & V.N. Purohit, FCA
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

price, therefore, the inventory taken by them can never be tallied with the inventory of the assessee and therefore the addition made by the AO based on average inventory is not acceptable. Moreover, the AO has not rejected the books of accounts of the assessee and made the addition based on estimate, which is against the settled position

PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 984/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

133A at the business premises of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd on 21.01.2015 wherein he stated that Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit is the Managing Director of the group companies and proprietor of BC Purohit & Co. and is an employee of the group companies managed by Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit and was also the director of the companies, and as regards

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 983/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

133A at the business premises of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd on 21.01.2015 wherein he stated that Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit is the Managing Director of the group companies and proprietor of BC Purohit & Co. and is an employee of the group companies managed by Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit and was also the director of the companies, and as regards

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2068/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

133A at the business premises of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd on 21.01.2015 wherein he stated that Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit is the Managing Director of the group companies and proprietor of BC Purohit & Co. and is an employee of the group companies managed by Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit and was also the director of the companies, and as regards

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 982/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

133A at the business premises of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd on 21.01.2015 wherein he stated that Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit is the Managing Director of the group companies and proprietor of BC Purohit & Co. and is an employee of the group companies managed by Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit and was also the director of the companies, and as regards

SAM DEVELOPERS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1083/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm] I.T.A No. 1083/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sam Developers (Pan: Aasfs6276N) Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-40, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.11.2016

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Alam, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

133A of the Act was conducted on 14.03.2007 in the business premises of assessee and documents/loose bunch, exercise book, computerized loose sheets, purchase book, bank register etc. were impounded. Its return was selected for compulsory scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 27.03.2008 and duly served on the assessee in collecting the questionnaire and hearing