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.

13 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 11clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,103Mumbai4,711Bangalore1,941Chennai998Kolkata851Ahmedabad749Hyderabad742Pune734Karnataka531Jaipur447Chandigarh312Surat304Indore264Cochin220Visakhapatnam128Rajkot128SC113Telangana88Lucknow84Cuttack83Nagpur77Raipur67Calcutta67Amritsar52Agra38Guwahati36Dehradun33Jodhpur31A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN16Panaji13Jabalpur13Ranchi13Varanasi12Rajasthan11Kerala10Allahabad10Patna8Orissa6Punjab & Haryana3MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 43B21Addition to Income11Section 143(3)9Deduction7Section 1156Section 2636Section 92C6Disallowance5Transfer Pricing4

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

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 as compared to the rates of the assessee to AE, without

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 144C3
Natural Justice3
Section 144C(5)2
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

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 as compared to the rates of the assessee to AE, without

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 adjustment were made by the TPO. These have been detailed in the assessment order para '7' of the assessment order referred above. The TP adjustment made by TPO were in total Rs. 10 ITA.No.205/PAN./2019 83,045,395/-. Assessee had made objection before the DRP and pursuant to DRP direction, the assessment was framed as per section

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

11 of the India -UK Tax Treaty. Upon the said question being answered the Department is at liberty to gross up the tax rate in an appropriate manner.” (Emphasis suppled) . Thus, 5. We considering the facts, submissions and ratio of the judicial decision restore this disputed issue for limited purpose to the file of the Assessing officer to adjudicate

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

Transfer Pricing Officer took charge by observing thus :- “11. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the other case laws, we are of the view that the new TPO should have given a show cause 3 notice and also the copy of the material gathered by him which he wanted to use against

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)

section 115(O) of the Act is applicable and not at the rate of tax applicable to nonresident share holders as specified in the relevant DTAA on such dividend income and accordingly this additional ground of appeal of the assesse is dismissed. 6. The Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company is engaged in the business

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

11 M/s.Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd. (Guj.) has held that royalty is not tax and hence the provisions of sec.43B would not be attracted. When the merits of addition under the said provision is not sustainable, then in such scenario, the issue whether there has been any violation of Rule 46A by the ld. CIT(A) while providing relief

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

11 M/s.Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd. (Guj.) has held that royalty is not tax and hence the provisions of sec.43B would not be attracted. When the merits of addition under the said provision is not sustainable, then in such scenario, the issue whether there has been any violation of Rule 46A by the ld. CIT(A) while providing relief

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

11 M/s.Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd. (Guj.) has held that royalty is not tax and hence the provisions of sec.43B would not be attracted. When the merits of addition under the said provision is not sustainable, then in such scenario, the issue whether there has been any violation of Rule 46A by the ld. CIT(A) while providing relief

VIJESH VITHAL TALAULICAR,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 230/PAN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 230/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Vijesh Vithal Talaulicar Shri Ramnath Sadan, Dr. Dada Vaidya Road, Panaji, Goa Pan : Aaxpt9647D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri D.E. Robinson, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

price. The said transaction does not character of a capital transaction as claimed by the appellant as no rights pertaining to the land have been sold nor has .there been any destruction, immobilization of any capital asset. The plot can continue to be used for dumping the iron ore rejects. • ITAT Cochin in the case of Sri E.M. Johnyvs

BEIERSDORF INDIA (P) LTD.,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4),, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 337/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh D.E. Robinson, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 28Section 36Section 43Section 43(5)

transfer of such warehouse receipts, by the broker. The payouts being made by the clearing house on settlement dates. The difference between the selling price and cost price of the commodities after deduction of brokerage was the income arising from this activity. It is not disputed by the AO that such income has been returned as business income

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)

section 41(1) of the Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Aircel Cellular Ltd. vs. CIT, 45 taxmann.com 55 (Guj.). The ld. CIT(A) had fell in serious error in confirming the addition merely going by the fact that the assessee itself had written

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)

section 41(1) of the Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Aircel Cellular Ltd. vs. CIT, 45 taxmann.com 55 (Guj.). The ld. CIT(A) had fell in serious error in confirming the addition merely going by the fact that the assessee itself had written