Search: transfer pricing | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

38 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 92clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,843 Delhi1,836 Bangalore734 Chennai355 Karnataka334 Ahmedabad314 Kolkata288 Hyderabad221 Jaipur187 Pune184 Chandigarh161 Cochin119 Indore91 Rajkot61 Calcutta56 Visakhapatnam56 Surat43 Lucknow38 Nagpur27 SC25 Telangana25 Guwahati24 Cuttack24 Amritsar23 Raipur22 Agra9 Dehradun7 Panaji5 Jodhpur4 Rajasthan4 Allahabad3 Jabalpur2 Kerala2 Ranchi2 Orissa1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 Andhra Pradesh1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 1159 Addition to Income29 Section 12A22 Section 69C19 Section 2(15)17 Section 1516 Exemption15 Section 153A12 Section 143(3)11

MIRZA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KANPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), KANPUR

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 35/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 40A(7)Section 80Section 92Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer have erred in law and on facts in making an adjustment under section 92 CA of the Act of Rs.3

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

Survey u/s 133A10

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 24/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Bareilly V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Amritsar V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs4654E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Kanpur(I) V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2468Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Guwahati V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2462E (Appellant) (Respondent)

92,350/- (Ground No.4), under section 69C of the Act, on account of opening balance of work-in-progress brought forward from the earlier year. 29. Ground No.5 challenge the ld. CIT(A)’s direction to the Assessing Officer to issue, on a protective basis, a notice under section 148 of the Act, for Assessment Year

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

ITA 533/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Section 11Section 12A

section 11.\nWe notice that even while the Assessing Officer was primarily focused on trying to\ndemonstrate that the activities of the assessee parishad were not charitable, he still\nfound time to go through the accounts to observe that the assessee had applied less\nthan 85% of its receipts during the year and was therefore required to file an\napplication

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(FORMERLY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),AYODHYA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

ITA 143/LKW/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

92,10,505/- being the balance in 'infrastructure development fund account'. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount in the above statutory fund are specifically received by virtue of Government Order dt. 15.01.1998 and are meant for utilization in the development activities exclusively. Ld CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the unutilized left over amount

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

ITA 532/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Section 11Section 12A

section 11. Accordingly, additional ground number 2 does not seem\nto fit with the facts of the case and therefore it is also dismissed. This brings us to\nadditional ground number 3 ie that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered whether the\nmoney of the parishad was being invested in the specified modes or not. In this\ncontext

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,MUZAFFAR NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

ITA 35/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Madhuk, CIT (DR) (on 4.2.2020 and 5.2.2020) & Smt

transferred within a period of one year and the price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -3(4), RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

ITA 34/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Madhuk, CIT (DR) (on 4.2.2020 and 5.2.2020) & Smt

transferred within a period of one year and the price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(4), RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

ITA 33/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Madhuk, CIT (DR) (on 4.2.2020 and 5.2.2020) & Smt

transferred within a period of one year and the price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,ALIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

ITA 32/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Madhuk, CIT (DR) (on 4.2.2020 and 5.2.2020) & Smt

transferred within a period of one year and the price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,KURUKSHETRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(4), LUCKNOW

ITA 30/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Madhuk, CIT (DR) (on 4.2.2020 and 5.2.2020) & Smt

transferred within a period of one year and the price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,ANAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(4), RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

ITA 39/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Madhuk, CIT (DR) (on 4.2.2020 and 5.2.2020) & Smt

transferred within a period of one year and the price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 34), RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

ITA 38/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Madhuk, CIT (DR) (on 4.2.2020 and 5.2.2020) & Smt

transferred within a period of one year and the price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -3(4), LUCKNOW

ITA 37/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Madhuk, CIT (DR) (on 4.2.2020 and 5.2.2020) & Smt

transferred within a period of one year and the price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,KARNAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -3(4), RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

ITA 36/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Madhuk, CIT (DR) (on 4.2.2020 and 5.2.2020) & Smt

transferred within a period of one year and the price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,MORADABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(4), RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

ITA 31/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Madhuk, CIT (DR) (on 4.2.2020 and 5.2.2020) & Smt

transferred within a period of one year and the price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(4), LUCKNOW

ITA 25/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Madhuk, CIT (DR) (on 4.2.2020 and 5.2.2020) & Smt

transferred within a period of one year and the price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

ITA 26/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Madhuk, CIT (DR) (on 4.2.2020 and 5.2.2020) & Smt

transferred within a period of one year and the price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

ITA 27/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Madhuk, CIT (DR) (on 4.2.2020 and 5.2.2020) & Smt

transferred within a period of one year and the price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,DEVAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(4), RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

ITA 28/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Madhuk, CIT (DR) (on 4.2.2020 and 5.2.2020) & Smt

transferred within a period of one year and the price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

ITA 29/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Madhuk, CIT (DR) (on 4.2.2020 and 5.2.2020) & Smt

transferred within a period of one year and the price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant