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 11(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,035Mumbai4,629Bangalore1,916Chennai956Kolkata838Ahmedabad742Hyderabad739Pune732Karnataka531Jaipur440Chandigarh306Surat296Indore261Cochin223Rajkot123Visakhapatnam118SC113Telangana88Cuttack83Lucknow82Nagpur75Raipur67Calcutta67Amritsar52Agra36Guwahati36Dehradun33Jodhpur32A.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

4) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 153 [or section 153B], pass the assessment order under sub-section (3) within one month from the end of the month in which,- 16 ITA.No.205/PAN./2019 (a) the acceptance is received; or (b) the period of filing of objections under sub- section (2) expires. (5) The Dispute Resolution Panel

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

4) which in turn is a part of the Income tax statute and legislation subject to section 90 read with the relevant DTAA. Therefore, levy of tax on dividend paid/distributed by the Appellant in excess of 10% would squarely be contrary to the provision of India- UK DTAA. The BFAR therefore erred in overlooking the settled legal principle that with

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)

4. The second additional ground of appeal (ii) raised by the assesse for applicability of Dividend IT(TP)A No. 67/PAN/2017 Guala Closures (India) Private Limited. Distribution Tax (DDT) tax rate @10% under the India-Netherlands tax treaty read with protocol treaty and the excess DDT paid should be refunded along with the interest. We find this disputed issue

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

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 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

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

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

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)

4. Being aggrieved by that part of the order of the ld. CIT(A), which is against the Revenue, the Revenue is in appeal in ITA No.135/PAN/2016. The assessee is in appeal in ITA No.118/PAN/2016 being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition on account of sundry creditors of Rs.7,07,68,721/-. ITA No.118/PAN/2016

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)

4. Being aggrieved by that part of the order of the ld. CIT(A), which is against the Revenue, the Revenue is in appeal in ITA No.135/PAN/2016. The assessee is in appeal in ITA No.118/PAN/2016 being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition on account of sundry creditors of Rs.7,07,68,721/-. ITA No.118/PAN/2016