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.

5 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 10(35)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,742Mumbai2,389Bangalore1,069Chennai496Ahmedabad478Kolkata421Hyderabad407Karnataka360Pune309Jaipur297Chandigarh227Surat206Indore186Cochin161Rajkot79SC64Visakhapatnam58Calcutta55Raipur51Telangana50Lucknow48Cuttack47Nagpur34Guwahati25Jodhpur22Amritsar21Agra14Dehradun11Ranchi9Varanasi9Rajasthan8Kerala7Panaji6Patna6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Allahabad5Orissa5MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Jabalpur1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 1662

BARUNEI ROLLER FLOUR MILL (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 1

In the result, the award of the maximum uniform rate for the

ITA/1/2022HC Orissa03 Nov 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI (ACJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

35 of 99 LEARNED COURT GRANTED FUTURE INTEREST (i) A perusal of the decree dated 17.03.2020 (page 327 of Paper book I) the learned counsel submits, would reveal that the learned Reference Court computed interest w.e.f. 13.09.2002 till 12.12.2021without any plausible or comprehensible reason available in the records, to explain grant of interest till a future date

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. INDUSTRIAL PROMOTION AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD.

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

ITA/15/2021HC Orissa31 Jan 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Section 107

10 makes original tax invoice relevant for the purpose of claiming tax. Therefore, under the scheme of the VAT Act, it is not permissible for the dealers to argue that the price as indicated in the tax invoice should not have been taken into consideration but the net purchase price after discount is to be the basis. If we were

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S.UTKAL ALUMINA INTERNATIONAL LTD.

ITA/10/2017HC Orissa04 Dec 2019

Bench: MR. JUSTICE K. S. JHAVERI (CJ),MR. JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA

transfer by way of mortgage the urban land bearing No. A-I, Radhey Puri, Delhi-51. DW-2 22. Copy of Grant of mortgage permission in respect of plot no.8, Sector B &C for which loan has been sanctioned for construction of building thereon. DW-2 23. Copy of No objection certificate to mortgage the plot no.8, Sector

MAHESWAR PANDA vs. I.T.O., WARD-2(1)

ITA/48/2023HC Orissa15 Apr 2024

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

Section 166

10. Petitioners have further examined PW2 HC Rambir who deposed that he is the IO in the present case FIR and on 10.11.2015 he was posted at police station Salhawas and on that day, he received a wireless message that one Rohan son of Sh.Surender resident of Subana has died in a road accident. He further deposed that he along

M/S.SHEETAL REAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal fails and the substantial questions of law

ITA/83/2010HC Orissa08 Feb 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 372A

35 of 60 17. The assessee in their reply contended that they have accounted for the transactions as investment transactions in its books of accounts and has been specifically shown as such in the schedule. That the assessee has been investing idle funds within the limit prescribed under section 372A of the Companies Act, 1956. That the assessee has been