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 5(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,485Mumbai5,302Bangalore2,039Chennai1,139Kolkata973Ahmedabad801Karnataka799Hyderabad788Pune786Jaipur482Surat326Indore287Chandigarh270Cochin240Visakhapatnam144Rajkot140SC125Telangana107Lucknow92Nagpur85Cuttack84Calcutta76Raipur68Amritsar55Agra38Guwahati38Jodhpur38Dehradun37Jabalpur18A.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

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

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

2 situations mentioned herein above, is fully justified. 26. Mention has also been made of the individual appeals filed by some land owners in FA Nos. 1 to 5, with regard to enhancement of compensation, which would stand covered by the arguments already advanced. In conclusion, the learned Senior counsel prays that the First Appeal filed by the Collector

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

2 of 2018 and the learned Special Judge took cognizance vide order dated 19.11.2018 against 6 accused persons namely Pradeep Kumar, Rajendra Kumar, Nand Lal HUF, Shyamal Chakrabarty, Dharmendra Kumar Dhiraj and Naresh Kumar Kejriwal. 5. After investigation, the provisional attachment order (PAO) No. 4/2018 dated 20.02.2018 was issued by the ED under Section 5(1) of the PMLA whereas

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

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

2) was issued on 20th October, 2006 subsequently, notice under Section 142(1) was issued. The assessee is in the business of manufacture and sale of plywood and related products having its registered office in Kolkata and four regional offices and seventeen branches. Several issues were discussed with the assessee and the assessment was completed under Section

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

2 (i) Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in determining the payment under the head of management support service at Arm’s Length 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

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

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

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

2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in seeking comparability in imposing condition beyond law whereas the requirement of law is to acknowledge only those differences that are likely to materially affect the margin? 3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case