Search: transfer pricing | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

4 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 18clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,230 Mumbai3,795 Bangalore1,636 Chennai741 Kolkata654 Ahmedabad635 Hyderabad597 Pune553 Karnataka535 Jaipur394 Surat280 Chandigarh277 Indore247 Cochin182 Visakhapatnam96 SC96 Rajkot90 Telangana78 Cuttack70 Calcutta66 Nagpur64 Raipur56 Lucknow56 Amritsar40 Agra30 Guwahati29 Jodhpur28 Dehradun25 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN12 Varanasi11 Ranchi9 Rajasthan9 Kerala6 Jabalpur6 Orissa6 Patna6 Allahabad6 Panaji4 Punjab & Haryana2 Andhra Pradesh2 T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 2636 Section 143(3)4 Deduction3 Addition to Income3 Section 14A2 Section 41(1)2 Section 43(5)2 Section 362 Section 432

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

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

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)

18, considering the submissions of the assessee that the assessee had purchased iron ore from these parties and in subsequent period it had business transactions with theses parties held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. As regards, the provisions for expenses, considering the submissions of the assessee that

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)

18, considering the submissions of the assessee that the assessee had purchased iron ore from these parties and in subsequent period it had business transactions with theses parties held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. As regards, the provisions for expenses, considering the submissions of the assessee that