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.

9 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 5clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,494Mumbai5,304Bangalore2,040Chennai1,139Kolkata973Ahmedabad834Karnataka799Hyderabad788Pune786Jaipur482Surat326Chandigarh319Indore287Cochin246Visakhapatnam144Rajkot140SC125Telangana107Lucknow92Nagpur88Cuttack88Calcutta76Raipur72Amritsar55Jodhpur38Agra38Guwahati38Dehradun37Jabalpur18A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN17Ranchi15Panaji13Varanasi13Kerala13Rajasthan13Allahabad12Patna11Orissa9Punjab & Haryana3Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1S.B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1

Key Topics

Section 2603Comparables/TP3Section 260A2Section 1662Transfer Pricing2

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2) vs. M/S. SERAJUDDIN AND CO.

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for

ITA/43/2022HC Orissa15 Mar 2023

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

Section 260

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 12.10.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in IT(TP)A.Nos.160 and 211/Bang/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12, raising the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether

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

Transfer of Property Act, to advance the argument that the price component in a sale is an intrinsic and integral part of the transaction and a sale cannot exist without the price component and the price component in a sale transaction cannot be independent, whereas for a ‘collateral purpose’ it should be something i.e. independent and divisible from the main

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,BHUBANESWAR vs. SEKHAR KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ITA/9/2024HC Orissa15 Apr 2024

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

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Prashant Vidyarthy, Sr. Panel Counsel
Section 164Section 42

transferred amount to the firms owned by Sitaram Pathak and Inderlal Kejriwal, the money was credited to the account of Nand Lal HUF from M/s Rhea Enterprises which is controlled by Shyamal Chakravarty. As per statements of Rajesh Kumar Fogla under Section 164 Cr. P.C. and Vikas Khetan also, it transpires that the present appellant used to receive the bribe

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. INDIAN METALS AND FERRO ALLOYS LTD.

In the result, the substantial questions of law (i)

ITA/10/2021HC Orissa30 Jan 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant Mr. Asim Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Soham Sen, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated October 17, 2018 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.524/Kol/2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

Section 260ASection 32Section 92C

Price when the provision of Section 92C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and read with rule 10B & Rule 10C of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, allows for “Reliable and accurate adjustment” to account for difference between intonated transaction and comparable uncontrolled transactions ? (ii) Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in allowing the depreciation on Intellectual

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

price. 27. In that view of the matter, as it is admitted case of the petitioner that the electricity generated in 540 MW Power Plant is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer i.e. the petitioner herein, the petitioner would not be entitled for ITC to electrical

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.AHINSA VINIMAY PVT.LTD.

ITA/132/2018HC Orissa05 Apr 2022

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

Section 260

5. However, this Court in a recent judgment in I.T.A. Nos.536/2015 c/w 537/2015 delivered on 25.06.2018 (Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. –v- M/s Softbrands India Pvt. Ltd.,) has held that in these type of cases, unless an ex-facie perversity in the findings of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is established by the appellant, the appeal

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

5. A perusal of the records shows, that at the time of the accident, a trolley was attached with the tractor, which was carrying sand for the purpose of construction of underground tank near the farm land for irrigation purpose(s). However, merely because it was carrying sand would not mean that the tractor was being used for commercial purpose

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

transfer of shares of companies which were thinly traded and were highly illiquid and they are called as penny stocks. The period of holding of the shares is just above 12 months and the appreciation in price during this period was phenomenal. On an average transaction in the shares are shown to have been yielded 1129% returns during the period

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