BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

3 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 18clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,832Delhi1,786Hyderabad390Chennai383Bangalore341Ahmedabad253Jaipur205Chandigarh171Kolkata171Indore120SC119Pune115Cochin102Rajkot83Surat65Visakhapatnam48Nagpur47Raipur39Lucknow37Cuttack29Amritsar26Jodhpur22Dehradun20Agra20Guwahati19A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN12Varanasi7Patna6Jabalpur5Panaji3Allahabad3Ranchi2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 2636Section 143(3)4Deduction3Addition to Income3Section 14A2Section 41(1)2Disallowance2

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

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