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 16clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,492Mumbai4,013Bangalore1,709Chennai784Kolkata728Ahmedabad675Hyderabad642Pune585Karnataka470Jaipur408Surat274Chandigarh274Indore247Cochin190Rajkot111Visakhapatnam103SC102Telangana79Cuttack71Nagpur69Calcutta68Raipur62Lucknow60Amritsar43Agra34Jodhpur31Dehradun29Guwahati29A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN15Varanasi10Ranchi10Panaji9Allahabad9Rajasthan9Kerala7Jabalpur7Orissa7Patna5Punjab & Haryana3A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1Andhra Pradesh1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 43B21Addition to Income7Section 2636Section 143(3)5Disallowance5Section 144C3Deduction3Section 14A2Section 41(1)2

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

Section 43(5)2
Section 362
Transfer Pricing2

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

16. We heard the rival contentions on this issue and perused the record. Since Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Kesoram Industries Ltd. & Ors. (supra) that royalty is not tax and since Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held in the case of Kutch Minerals (supra) that royalty would not be covered u/sec

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

16. We heard the rival contentions on this issue and perused the record. Since Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Kesoram Industries Ltd. & Ors. (supra) that royalty is not tax and since Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held in the case of Kutch Minerals (supra) that royalty would not be covered u/sec

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

16. We heard the rival contentions on this issue and perused the record. Since Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Kesoram Industries Ltd. & Ors. (supra) that royalty is not tax and since Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held in the case of Kutch Minerals (supra) that royalty would not be covered u/sec

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

16. We have gone through the order of the Tribunal dated 1 October 2012 by which the proceedings were remanded. The Tribunal noted that during the course of the proceedings, a new Transfer Pricing Officer took charge of the Assessee's case and he passed an order without issuing any show cause and without hearing the Assessee. The Tribunal upheld

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)

16 except Sl. No.7 and 10 and Sl. No.22 found that the assessee had entered into a service cum purchase contract whereby the contractors were entitled to operate as well as a right to own the contract mining related machineries upon payments of contracted price in instalment. In respect of these parties, the assessee paid service charges to the contractor

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)

16 except Sl. No.7 and 10 and Sl. No.22 found that the assessee had entered into a service cum purchase contract whereby the contractors were entitled to operate as well as a right to own the contract mining related machineries upon payments of contracted price in instalment. In respect of these parties, the assessee paid service charges to the contractor

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)

transfer the aforementioned 10,000 equity shares. It was further submitted by the assessee, that as per the terms of the aforesaid ‘agreement’ the rejection of dump lying outside the mining area would continue to belong to sellers alongwith all future rejection dump that would be generated. Backed by the aforesaid facts, it was claimed by the assessee that pursuant