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.

2 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 168clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi413Mumbai350Karnataka248Bangalore154Pune88Ahmedabad79Chennai59Jaipur53Calcutta51Hyderabad48Indore42Kolkata32Chandigarh24Raipur20Guwahati16Cochin13Lucknow13Rajkot12Amritsar11Jodhpur10Visakhapatnam8SC7Surat6Telangana5Rajasthan3Orissa2Nagpur2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 683Section 1483Section 10(38)2Addition to Income2

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

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: Disposed
ITAT Nagpur
06 Dec 2024
AY 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

transfer of an amount of Rs. 1,07,350 to N, an employee of assessee in Bombay office, the amount cannot be assessed as undisclosed income of in the absence of positive material brought by Revenue to prove that the amount in fact belonged to assessee as the burden lay on the Revenue