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.

11 results for “transfer pricing”+ Addition to Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,365Mumbai5,196Bangalore2,006Chennai1,094Kolkata1,007Ahmedabad783Hyderabad760Pune714Jaipur480Karnataka448Surat299Indore285Chandigarh280Cochin227Visakhapatnam150Rajkot131Cuttack83Nagpur81Lucknow79Telangana75Calcutta68Raipur65SC61Amritsar58Agra35Guwahati35Jodhpur34Dehradun34Jabalpur17Ranchi16Allahabad12Varanasi12Kerala11Panaji11Rajasthan10Patna10Orissa6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Punjab & Haryana3Andhra Pradesh2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 43B21Addition to Income11Section 143(3)8Deduction7Section 1156Section 2636Section 92C6Disallowance5Transfer Pricing4Section 144C

SCORPIO IRON LTD,PANAJI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 388/PAN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Oct 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shrinivas Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92C

income tax benefit availed by the assesse nor their associate concerns. 11) The Id. AO(TP) and Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore, has erred in rejecting the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method adopted by the assessee, under the transfer pricing provision. 12) The Id AO-TP has erred in concluding that there is huge difference in rates of third party prices

SHREE AMBEY FORGING PRIVAT LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ITO, WARD - (4), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

3
Natural Justice3
Section 144C(5)2
ITA 389/PAN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Oct 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shrinivas Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92C

income tax benefit availed by the assesse nor their associate concerns. 11) The Id. AO(TP) and Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore, has erred in rejecting the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method adopted by the assessee, under the transfer pricing provision. 12) The Id AO-TP has erred in concluding that there is huge difference in rates of third party prices

GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,PANAJI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 344/PAN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A.No.344/Pan/2017 (A.Y.2013-14 ) Guala Closures(India) Vs. I T O Ward1(1), Private Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, D-1, Sesa Ghor, Edc, Patto, 20,Edc Complex, Panjim-403001. Patto, Goa. Panaji-403001, Goa Pan/Gir No.:Aaacg4447J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Niraj Sheth. ARFor Respondent: Shri.Renga Ranjan.CIT DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 2(43)Section 4Section 90

Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.3,17,85,688/- and (ii)disallowance of excess depreciation on Nip Cap unit of Rs.17,54,911/ and assessed the total income of Rs.98,29,02,810/-. The assessee aggrieved with the draft assessment order has filed the objections in Formno-35A with the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). In the DRP proceedings the assessee

GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,PANAJI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PANAJI., PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 62/PAN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A.No.62/Pan/2017 (A.Y.2012-13 ) Guala Closures(India) Vs. I T O Ward1(1), Private Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, D-1, Seasa Ghor, Edc, Patto, 20,Edc Complex, Panjim-403001. Patto, Goa. Panaji-403001, Goa Pan/Gir No.:Aaacg4447J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Nirajsheth. ARFor Respondent: Shri.Satish M .CIT DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.3,04,33,012/- and (ii)disallowance of excess depreciation on Nip Cap unit of Rs.20,64,601/ and assessed the total income of Rs.99,48,28,460/-. The assessee aggrieved with the draft assessment order has filed the objections in Formno-35A with the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). In the DRP proceedings the assessee

M/S SALITHO ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - M1, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 72/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.1 07,77,75,066/- is hereby deleted. Ground no.3 is allowed.” We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) held that when one trader transfers his goods to another trader at a price less than

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 99/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.1 07,77,75,066/- is hereby deleted. Ground no.3 is allowed.” We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) held that when one trader transfers his goods to another trader at a price less than

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.1 07,77,75,066/- is hereby deleted. Ground no.3 is allowed.” We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) held that when one trader transfers his goods to another trader at a price less than

GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,PANAJI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI., SELECT CITY

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 205/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Shivshankar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 253Section 263Section 4

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company.] 18. A reading of the said section brings to the fore following:- The assessee has option to go to the DRP by filing objection before it. As per the provisions of section 144C

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), PANAJI., PANAJI vs. M/S ANDREW TELECOMMUNICATION INDIA PVT. LTD., VERNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/PAN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Vs. M/S Andrew Telecommunications Circle-2(1), India Pvt. Ltd., Panaji, Plot No.N2, Andrew Phase Iv, Goa. Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Goa. Pan: Aabca8820A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ranjan Kumar, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji—1, Dated 08.02.2018 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Revenue Read As Under:- “1. Whether The Cit(A) Has Rightly Allowed The All Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact Draft Assessment Order Is Relevant For Addition On Account Of Tp Adjustment. 2. Whether The Cit(A) Has Rightly Allowed The Grounds Of Appeal With Respect To Additions Made By The Ao Other Than Tp Adjustment, Without Going To Merit Of The Case. 3. For These & Other Grounds That May Be Adduced At The Time Of The Hearing The Order Of The Cit(A) May Be Set Aside & The Order Of The Assessing Order Restored.”

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143CSection 144C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT, Vs. M/s Andrew Telecommunications Circle-2(1), India Pvt. Ltd., Panaji, Plot No.N2, Andrew Phase IV, Goa. Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Goa. PAN: AABCA8820A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ketan Ved, CA Revenue by : Shri Ranjan

SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,PANAJI vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE., MARGAO

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 118/PAN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)

price in instalment. In respect of these parties, the assessee paid service charges to the contractor out of which amount of the machineries was deducted and balance amount was shown as liability in the books of accounts which is adjusted at the time of the transfer of the ownership. Based on this submission, the ld. CIT(A) concluded that there

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, MARGAO., MARGAO vs. M/S SALGAONCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 135/PAN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)

price in instalment. In respect of these parties, the assessee paid service charges to the contractor out of which amount of the machineries was deducted and balance amount was shown as liability in the books of accounts which is adjusted at the time of the transfer of the ownership. Based on this submission, the ld. CIT(A) concluded that there