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.

4 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 224clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi608Mumbai252Karnataka246Bangalore127Ahmedabad65Chennai62Jaipur53Indore39Chandigarh32Cochin27Hyderabad26Kolkata25Pune23Lucknow19Calcutta16Surat11Rajkot10Dehradun9SC7Allahabad5Nagpur4Varanasi4Raipur4Telangana3Rajasthan3Amritsar2Visakhapatnam1Agra1Andhra Pradesh1Cuttack1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(viii)4Section 36(1)(viia)4Section 1483Disallowance3Section 222Section 80P2Section 36(1)2Deduction2Addition to Income2

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 8/NAG/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

price paid for them was in the nature of a capital outlay and no part of it can be set off as expenditure against income accruing on those securities. Subsequently, when these securities yielded income by way of interest, such income attracted Section 18." (emphasis supplied). Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank A.Y. 2014–15 & 2015–16 7.5 In the nutshell

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 7/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

price paid for them was in the nature of a capital outlay and no part of it can be set off as expenditure against income accruing on those securities. Subsequently, when these securities yielded income by way of interest, such income attracted Section 18." (emphasis supplied). Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank A.Y. 2014–15 & 2015–16 7.5 In the nutshell

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE , AKOLA vs. AKOLA URBAN CO-OPRATIVE BANK LTD , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 119/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

224 13–14 2010–11 4,91,00,000 48,65,805 15–16 2011–12 4,50,00,000 89,60,765 17–19 2012–13 6,70,00,000 1,94,88,933 20–21 No claim being 2013–14 16,74,00,000 22–23 loss No claim being

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

224, 379 & 394 of the Paper Book 5. The assessee denies the allegation that amount received were accommodation entries. The assessing officer did not cross examine Shri Shirish Shah and not provided any opportunity to cross examine Shri Shirish Shah. The assessee were not allowed to cross examine Jayesh Thakar D/o. Prabhav Industries. Though the assessee has made several request