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.

4 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai121Delhi80Ahmedabad71Chandigarh64Chennai52Hyderabad33Kolkata32Bangalore32Jaipur17Jodhpur10Visakhapatnam10Raipur10Pune8Indore5Karnataka4Lucknow4Guwahati3SC3Surat3Cuttack2Amritsar2Cochin2Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 41(1)8Section 684Section 69C4Section 36(1)(va)4Disallowance4Addition to Income4Section 412Section 372Section 143(3)2Section 14A

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C
2
Survey u/s 133A2
Transfer Pricing2

va) of Rs. 1,13,096/- and disallowance of foreign commission treating the same as prior period expenditure of Rs. 2,60,000/-. 5. That the appellant being aggrieved went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who deleted the above additions but confirmed the addition amounting of Rs.2,96,50,131/- to the extent of six sundry creditor which

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

va) of Rs. 1,13,096/- and disallowance of foreign commission treating the same as prior period expenditure of Rs. 2,60,000/-. 5. That the appellant being aggrieved went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who deleted the above additions but confirmed the addition amounting of Rs.2,96,50,131/- to the extent of six sundry creditor which

M/S RAHMAN INDUSTRIES LTD,KANPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

ITA 416/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 14ASection 195Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

transfer pricing adjustments on the basis of the report of the TPO, the addition is contrary to the provisions of law, misconceived, unjustified, unwarranted and be deleted. 6. Because the authorities below have failed to demonstrate as to how the computation provided in the audit report in 3CEB was erroneous, not in accordance with the accounting norms or was erroneous

M/S RAHMAN INDUSTRIES LTD,KANPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

ITA 415/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 14ASection 195Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

transfer pricing adjustments on the basis of the report of the TPO, the addition is contrary to the provisions of law, misconceived, unjustified, unwarranted and be deleted. 6. Because the authorities below have failed to demonstrate as to how the computation provided in the audit report in 3CEB was erroneous, not in accordance with the accounting norms or was erroneous