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.

4 results for “transfer pricing”+ Deductionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,476Delhi3,083Bangalore1,507Chennai857Kolkata656Ahmedabad600Pune518Hyderabad475Karnataka400Jaipur344Chandigarh253Cochin191Indore172Surat109Rajkot101Visakhapatnam98Cuttack74SC67Telangana57Lucknow53Raipur45Nagpur43Amritsar35Calcutta31Jodhpur30Agra29Dehradun21Ranchi13Varanasi12Kerala11Panaji11Guwahati11Jabalpur11Allahabad10A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN7Rajasthan7Patna4Orissa4T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Punjab & Haryana1DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 2635Section 50C5Section 143(3)3Addition to Income3Section 80C2Section 2502Section 282Section 1482Business Income2

M/S KUMAR PIYUSH CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD,NALANDA vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 156/PAT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

deducted Rs. 1,38,54,942/- as “retention money”. This action of the assessee allegedly resulted in a loss of Rs. 98,65,419/-. On this issue, the Ld. PCIT noticed that the so called “retention money” was not debited in the P&L Account but was straightway adjusted in the computation of income. This action of the assessee

UDAYKUMAR VYAS,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1 (5), BSNL RTTC BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 262/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed
Deduction2
Disallowance2
Capital Gains2
ITAT Patna
21 Apr 2026
AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royudaykumar Vyas, Ito, Ward – 1(5) Flat No. 402, Lepresting Vs Nagpur Apartment, Plot No. 105- 106, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. Pan : Aarpv 4578 K Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Wazalwar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 50C

price. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of land development and plot trading, filed his return of income for AY 2013-14 declaring total income

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. SH. SURESH , PATNA

ITA 205/PAT/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Alok Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT D/R
Section 250Section 28Section 54Section 54F

transfer of lands as arose to the assesse. (ii) Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding Rupam Tower as Residential House and has erred in allowing deduction u/s 54 to the LTCG arising to the assessee. (iii) Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the claim of the assessee regarding the cost of construction of the Rupam Tower building. He also erred

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. RISHAV DUTTA, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 51/PAT/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri M. Kr. Mashi, CA
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 80C

deduction u/s. 80C was presented before the Ld. CIT(A). In the interest of justice and fair play, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the ld. AO so as to examine and verify these documents and records and obtain a remand report before disposing of the appeal by giving relief