BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

22 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi177Mumbai120Jaipur79Cochin58Hyderabad51Bangalore42Chandigarh32Ahmedabad32Chennai29Rajkot27Indore23Kolkata22Surat19Agra14Pune11Nagpur11Amritsar10Jodhpur4Visakhapatnam3Lucknow2Raipur1Cuttack1Allahabad1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 14735Section 14834Addition to Income22Section 115J19Section 69A17Section 13217Condonation of Delay17Section 14A8Section 685Section 143(2)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1595/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

price, as such, profit on this account\nwas returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus\npurchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious\nparties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on\nthe ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

4
Disallowance4
Cash Deposit3
ITA 1700/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

price, as such, profit on this account\nwas returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus\npurchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious\nparties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on\nthe ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1597/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

price, as such, profit on this account\nwas returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus\npurchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious\nparties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on\nthe ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1704/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2023-24
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

price, as such, profit on this account\nwas returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus\npurchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious\nparties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on\nthe ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

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

transferred the title of ownership to the lessee and claimed depreciation under section 32 of the Act on the said leased assets being the legal owner. 18. FOR THAT the DRP erred in applying the decision of the jurisdictional tribunal in the case of Phillips India and the Delhi High Court in the case of Rio Tinto, when both these

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

transferred the title of ownership to the lessee and claimed depreciation under section 32 of the Act on the said leased assets being the legal owner. 18. FOR THAT the DRP erred in applying the decision of the jurisdictional tribunal in the case of Phillips India and the Delhi High Court in the case of Rio Tinto, when both these

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1596/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

price, as such, profit on this account was returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus purchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious parties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on the ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1396/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

price, as such, profit on this account\nwas returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus\npurchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious\nparties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on\nthe ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1397/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

price, as such, profit on this account\nwas returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus\npurchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious\nparties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on\nthe ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1398/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2023-2024
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

price, as such, profit on this account\nwas returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus\npurchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious\nparties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on\nthe ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1399/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2023-2024
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

price, as such, profit on this account\nwas returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus\npurchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious\nparties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on\nthe ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1395/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

price, as such, profit on this account\nwas returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus\npurchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious\nparties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on\nthe ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1699/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

price, as such, profit on this account was returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus purchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious parties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on the ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1701/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

price, as such, profit on this account\nwas returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus\npurchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious\nparties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on\nthe ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1702/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

price, as such, profit on this account was returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus purchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious parties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on the ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1703/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

price, as such, profit on this account was returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus purchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious parties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on the ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND LEASE FIN PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1759/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

price, as such, profit on this account\nwas returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus\npurchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious\nparties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on\nthe ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1598/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

price, as such, profit on this account\nwas returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus\npurchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious\nparties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on\nthe ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

GOPAL & SONS HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1701/KOL/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

price, as such, profit on this account was returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus purchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious parties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on the ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

BALHANUMAN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

ITA 116/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

69A. This aspect has been deliberated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous decisions. Relevant portion from following case laws are extracted below: i. Sreelekha Banerjee v CIT (1963) 49 1TR 112 (SC) ii. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) (iii) Roshan Di Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) iii. Sumati