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.

35 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 391clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai274Delhi266Karnataka244Ahmedabad88Bangalore77Jaipur48Kolkata35Pune33Chennai31Hyderabad20Chandigarh19Indore17SC7Visakhapatnam7Cochin6Surat4Calcutta4Telangana4Lucknow3Cuttack3Amritsar3Guwahati2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14A26Section 26323Addition to Income18Section 143(3)17Section 50C15Section 80I14Disallowance12Section 115J10Deduction10

M/S INSTRUMENTARIUM CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1549/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: The Special Bench:

transfer provisions of the Act, it is difficult to evaluate the overall revenue effect in those situations. Accordingly, the approach in paragraphs 16 and 17 of this Ruling should be followed with no determination and adjustment under subsection 136AD(2). I.T.A. Nos.1548 and 1549/Kol/2009 Assessment years: 2003-04 and 2004-05 Page 26 of 41 23. It is important

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 487/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 143(3)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). 5.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Nageswar Rao, argued that, no reference was made by the ld. Assessing Officer, to the ld. TPO for 14 I.T.A. No. 572/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & I.T.A. No. 487/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dongfang Electric Corporation determination of Arms Length Price of any international transaction and hence

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

Capital Gains10
Section 92C9
Section 689

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 572/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 143(3)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). 5.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Nageswar Rao, argued that, no reference was made by the ld. Assessing Officer, to the ld. TPO for 14 I.T.A. No. 572/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & I.T.A. No. 487/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dongfang Electric Corporation determination of Arms Length Price of any international transaction and hence

DCIT, LTU-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I), LTD, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2149/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

391/- being amount equivalent to the sum of dividend income earned during the year; u/s 14A of the Act. This disallowance of Rs.4,99,235/- offered by the assessee was not acceptable to the AO. The AO instead applied Rule 8D and worked out the disallowance in terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) & (iii) at Rs.29.31 lacs and Rs.4.98 lacs

M/S SRINATH JI FURNISHING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-5, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

ITA 1035/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, ld.DR
Section 263Section 92BSection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer by the Assessing officer after obtaining the approval of PCIT as per 92CA of the Act. In this view of the matter the 5 M/s. Raipur Steel Casting India P.Ltd. M/s Srinath Ji furnishing (p) Ltd benchmarking of the domestic transaction undertaken with the specified domestic parties for the purpose of determining the Arms Length Price

RAIPUR STEEL CASTING INDIA (P)) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-5, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

ITA 895/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, ld.DR
Section 263Section 92BSection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer by the Assessing officer after obtaining the approval of PCIT as per 92CA of the Act. In this view of the matter the 5 M/s. Raipur Steel Casting India P.Ltd. M/s Srinath Ji furnishing (p) Ltd benchmarking of the domestic transaction undertaken with the specified domestic parties for the purpose of determining the Arms Length Price

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 effective from 18 May 2015. To give effect to the amalgamation, a revised return was filed on 26th November 2015 declaring total income of Rs. 4,62,27,29,010/- under normal provisions and Rs. 6,07,14,22,413/- un- der the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act and claiming

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 effective from 18 May 2015. To give effect to the amalgamation, a revised return was filed on 26th November 2015 declaring total income of Rs. 4,62,27,29,010/- under normal provisions and Rs. 6,07,14,22,413/- un- der the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act and claiming

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2457/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

transfer of power when sold by the assessee or power generation station to the State Electricity Board. The Hon'ble Apex Court noted that the price at which surplus power was supplied by the assessee to the State Electricity Board was determined entirely by State Electricity Board in terms of statutory regulations and contractual terms and that such a price

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2458/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

transfer of power when sold by the assessee or power generation station to the State Electricity Board. The Hon'ble Apex Court noted that the price at which surplus power was supplied by the assessee to the State Electricity Board was determined entirely by State Electricity Board in terms of statutory regulations and contractual terms and that such a price

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2456/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

transfer of power when sold by the assessee or power generation station to the State Electricity Board. The Hon'ble Apex Court noted that the price at which surplus power was supplied by the assessee to the State Electricity Board was determined entirely by State Electricity Board in terms of statutory regulations and contractual terms and that such a price

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2459/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

transfer of power when sold by the assessee or power generation station to the State Electricity Board. The Hon'ble Apex Court noted that the price at which surplus power was supplied by the assessee to the State Electricity Board was determined entirely by State Electricity Board in terms of statutory regulations and contractual terms and that such a price

PCBL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2034/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

transfer of power when sold by the assessee or power generation station to the State Electricity Board. The Hon'ble Apex Court noted that the price at which surplus power was supplied by the assessee to the State Electricity Board was determined entirely by State Electricity Board in terms of statutory regulations and contractual terms and that such a price

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 570/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

391 (Kol) and Ritz Suppliers Pvt. ltd. (2020) 113 taxmann.com 349 (Kol). 3.8. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case and submissions made by the assessee noted about the undisputed fact that only the leasehold rights in an industrial plot of land has been transferred to SMI for a total consideration of Rs. 2 Cr. He further

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1013/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

Transfer Pricing Officer. Moreover the Id AR has put up clarificatory details as well as reasoning for apparent discrepancy in disclosure. However what needs to be considered is that neither the said clarification was sought by the AO nor any enquiry was made by the AO to check the correctness of specific domestic transactions. The issue of reference

ELECTROCAST SALES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-XXI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2145/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2145/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Electrocast Sales India Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-Xxi, Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 5671 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 72ASection 79

391(7) of the Companies Act, 1956, then it would be clearly barred by the doctrine of acquiescence and estoppel. In law, acquiescence occurs when a person knowingly stands by without raising any objection to the infringement of his or her rights, while someone else unknowingly and without malice aforethought acs in a manner inconsistent with their rights

CAROLINA FOOD AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1) , KOLKATA

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

ITA 2625/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 32

transfer of shares. Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals)relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of McDowell and Company Limited –vs.- Commercial Tax Officer reported in 1985 STC Vo;. 59 277 and also the decision of Vodafone International Holding B.V. –vs.- Union of India and Another (2012) 341 page 01 and finally dismissed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. XPRO INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 214/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(42)Section 36(2)Section 50B

Price shall, at all times, be the payment for the whole of the Business even though any individual asset or constituent thereof is for other purposes such as stamp du9ties, registrations etc., valued individually.” On perusal of above matter, AO observed the following facts : “That as per the agreement the party is buying all the current assets of the company

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 892/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 50

391 to 522 days). In other words, the sale of gold ETF would be STCG instead of LTCG and as a result the indexation benefit would not be available. In this way, the under-assessment was found to be to the tune of Rs. 2,11,99,359/- as follows: Particulars Sale price Cost price Actual L.T. Remarks 14 Assessment

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SOMANY CERAMICS LTD. ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPL LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 80/KOL/2015[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jul 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: : Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2004-05

For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

price which was decided by Hon’ble High Court. It is also interesting to note that assessing officer has not specifically disallowed the long term capital loss as non­genuine but merely denied its carried forward. Once a loss has been assessed for a year, there is not provision to deny its carried forward to the subsequent year. As discussed earlier