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.

25 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 153Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi98Cochin57Chandigarh43Chennai42Bangalore30Mumbai25Jaipur24Hyderabad19Agra14Nagpur12Lucknow6Pune2Visakhapatnam1Ahmedabad1Indore1Jodhpur1Surat1

Key Topics

Section 153A49Section 5628Section 6828Section 127(2)28Section 13225Section 14823Section 69C22Section 6921Addition to Income19

SMT. USHA SATISH SALVI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the three years

ITA 4238/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Satish ModiFor Respondent: 06/11/2024
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

153D of the I.T.ACT, 1961. Hence, we reject additional ground taken by the the I.T.ACT, 1961. Hence, we reject additional ground taken by the the I.T.ACT, 1961. Hence, we reject additional ground taken by the assessee.” 8.2 In view of the aforesaid discussion and verification of view of the aforesaid discussion and verification of view of the aforesaid discussion

SMT. USHA SATISH SALVI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2

Search & Seizure19
Reassessment7
Reopening of Assessment7

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the three years

ITA 4237/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Satish ModiFor Respondent: 06/11/2024
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

153D of the I.T.ACT, 1961. Hence, we reject additional ground taken by the the I.T.ACT, 1961. Hence, we reject additional ground taken by the the I.T.ACT, 1961. Hence, we reject additional ground taken by the assessee.” 8.2 In view of the aforesaid discussion and verification of view of the aforesaid discussion and verification of view of the aforesaid discussion

VRUSHALI SANJAY SHINDE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 1, THANE

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

ITA 198/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blevrushali Sanjay Shinde V. Dcit, Central Circle-1 282, Boundary Road B-101, Marigold, Prestige Residency G.B. Road, Kavesar, Thane- 400607 Civil Line, Meerut - 250001 Pan: Ajnps5211K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sankalp Malik Department Represented By : Shri Shanti Subramanian

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153C

Sections 147 and 151 were lightly treated by the Income Tax Officer as well as by the Commissioner. Both of them appear to have taken the duty imposed on them under those provisions as of little importance. They have substituted the form for the substance" 10. The afore-said, time old judgment which lays down the essence

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3585/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Smiti Samant, Ld. D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

transferring of unlisted shares at\na price different from the fair market value (i.e. no or inadequate\nconsideration) of the shares and also included within its ambit\ntransactions undertaken in shares of the company (not being a\ncompany in which public are substantially interested) either for\ninadequate consideration or without consideration, where\nrecipient is a firm or a company

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2470/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2468/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2469/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2471/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2472/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6405/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2467/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 719/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

153D of the Act 1961 b) your appellant strongly submits that no material whatsoever nature was found and/or seized during the course of search u/s 132 of the act in the hands of the appellant and that the additions made in the order were in respect of the items and issues that were settled in the original assessment and therefore

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 707/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

153D of the Act 1961 b) your appellant strongly submits that no material whatsoever nature was found and/or seized during the course of search u/s 132 of the act in the hands of the appellant and that the additions made in the order were in respect of the items and issues that were settled in the original assessment and therefore

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 708/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

153D of the Act 1961 b) your appellant strongly submits that no material whatsoever nature was found and/or seized during the course of search u/s 132 of the act in the hands of the appellant and that the additions made in the order were in respect of the items and issues that were settled in the original assessment and therefore

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 715/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

153D of the Act 1961 b) your appellant strongly submits that no material whatsoever nature was found and/or seized during the course of search u/s 132 of the act in the hands of the appellant and that the additions made in the order were in respect of the items and issues that were settled in the original assessment and therefore

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CY CIT-CC-5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 716/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

153D of the Act 1961 b) your appellant strongly submits that no material whatsoever nature was found and/or seized during the course of search u/s 132 of the act in the hands of the appellant and that the additions made in the order were in respect of the items and issues that were settled in the original assessment and therefore

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 717/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

153D of the Act 1961 b) your appellant strongly submits that no material whatsoever nature was found and/or seized during the course of search u/s 132 of the act in the hands of the appellant and that the additions made in the order were in respect of the items and issues that were settled in the original assessment and therefore

SMT. USHA SATISH SALVI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , CENTRAL CIRCLE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the three years\nare dismissed

ITA 4239/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Mr. Satish ModiFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

section 153D of\nthe I.T.ACT, 1961. Непсе, we reject additional ground taken by the\nassessee.\"\n\n8.2 In view of the aforesaid discussion and verification of records\navailable, we are of the opinion that approval was granted by the\nadditional Commissioner of income-tax after due application of\nmind. The objections of the assessee raised in an additional ground\nare

VINEET MITTAL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT . CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, this appeal is\nalso allowed

ITA 2428/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2013-14
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 153A

153D of the\nAct.\n11. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and\nfiled detailed submissions. After considering detailed submissions of the\nassessee and findings of the Assessing Officer, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the\ngrounds raised by the assessee observing that amounts shown in the\nbooks of the assessee as receipts from sale of shares of Turbotech\nEngineering

VINEEET MITTAL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR 3(3) , MUMBAI

Accordingly, this appeal is\nalso allowed

ITA 2427/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2014-15
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

153D of the\nAct.\"\n11. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and\nfiled detailed submissions. After considering detailed submissions of the\nassessee and findings of the Assessing Officer, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the\ngrounds raised by the assessee observing that amounts shown in the\nbooks of the assessee as receipts from sale of shares of Turbotech\nEngineering