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.

5 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 127clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi495Mumbai314Hyderabad94Bangalore81Jaipur80Ahmedabad66Cochin57Chennai53Chandigarh50Kolkata23Raipur20Indore19Visakhapatnam15Pune15Surat13Jodhpur12Rajkot11Cuttack9Lucknow8Nagpur5Agra2Amritsar1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 2638Section 69C8Section 685Addition to Income5Section 1324Section 1483Section 143(3)3Section 10(38)2Section 1532

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Pricing Officer, as the case may be had been subject matter of any appeal filed on or before after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under this sub-section shall extended and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matter as had not been considered and decided in such appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. DEEPAK SURESH GADGE, NAGPUR

Search & Seizure2
Undisclosed Income2

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 100/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon’Ble Accountant, Member

Section 132Section 153Section 69C

price at similar rate cannot be disputed for in between years. Hence addition made in the case of appellant is incorrect.” ITA No.99 & 100/NAG/2023 Deepak Suresh Gadge 10. Ld.AR further relied upon the following documents to prove his contentions : - i. Audited Financial Statement as on 31/03/2017 in the case of assessee. ii. Ledger Account of Shares of OCHFL (Primary Allotment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. DEEPAK SURESH GADGE, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon’Ble Accountant, Member

Section 132Section 153Section 69C

price at similar rate cannot be disputed for in between years. Hence addition made in the case of appellant is incorrect.” ITA No.99 & 100/NAG/2023 Deepak Suresh Gadge 10. Ld.AR further relied upon the following documents to prove his contentions : - i. Audited Financial Statement as on 31/03/2017 in the case of assessee. ii. Ledger Account of Shares of OCHFL (Primary Allotment

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

ITA 252/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

127 of paper book. iv. So far as the bank statement of Aadhar Ventures India Limited showing the transfer of funds is concerned, the assessee encloses herewith the copy of bank statement of Aadhar Ventures India Limited alongwith Copy of account of Aadhar Ventures India Limited which is on Page-128 of paper book. v. The assessee respectfully submits that

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(38)Section 68

price of M/s. ParagShilp Infrastructure & Services Ltd. to enable to assessee to legitimize his unaccounted fund. x) On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire gamut of direct & circumstantial evidence placed on record shows that claim of Long Term Capital Gain is Bogus in nature