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.

11 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 80Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi15Mumbai11Jaipur7Bangalore6Varanasi5Hyderabad3Chennai1Nagpur1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 69A20Section 2509Addition to Income8Business Income6Deduction5Section 80C4Section 1473Section 803Section 153A3Section 145

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5653/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 80Section 92

80C to 80U. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance Energy (supra) is clearly applicable to Assessee’s case also and accordingly the assessee has correctly claimed the deduction under section 80HHE from gross total income. Further, we notice that the co-ordinate bench in Assessee

MOHEMMED ANWAR BY LEGAL HEIR MOHAMMED AAMER,MORADABAD vs. ACIT, 17(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4432/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2014-15
3
Bogus/Accommodation Entry3
Section 143(3)2
For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt
For Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80CSection 80T

80C and section 80TTA of the Act, the assessee filed\nhis return of income on 24/12/2014 declaring a total income of Rs.\n36,62,870. The return filed by the assessee was processed vide intimation\nissued under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on the basis of the\ninformation received from the DDIT(Investigation), Unit-2(3), Kolkata that

PANKAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

ITA 4977/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

Section 145Section 153ASection 250Section 80C

80C amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. 8. We have also perused the impugned order passed by Ld.CIT(A). From the search and seizure operation conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Revenue Department and assessment proceedings carried out by the Assessing Officer it is proved on record that the assessees were directors / partners of 15 companies from

PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

ITA 7191/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

Section 145Section 153ASection 250Section 80C

80C amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. 8. We have also perused the impugned order passed by Ld.CIT(A). From the search and seizure operation conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Revenue Department and assessment proceedings carried out by the Assessing Officer it is proved on record that the assessees were directors / partners of 15 companies from

CASPER ENTERPRISES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

ITA 2498/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

Section 145Section 153ASection 250Section 80C

80C amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. 8. We have also perused the impugned order passed by Ld.CIT(A). From the search and seizure operation conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Revenue Department and assessment proceedings carried out by the Assessing Officer it is proved on record that the assessees were directors / partners of 15 companies from

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4593/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4151/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4150/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4153/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

RAJESH M JAIN (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4220/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 143(3)Section 144

prices mainly on the basis of rumors & news in media in connection with the future prospect of the company.  We relied on following judgment of higher forum:  Shri Deepak Walji Karia vs. Income Tax Officer 28(1)(3) ITA No. 259/Mum/2021 Tribunal's Findings 4 Rajesh M Jain (HUF) The ITAT observed that the AO had relied heavily on third