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.

7 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 35Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai68Delhi55Chennai36Ahmedabad28Raipur17Bangalore15Cochin9Pune7Kolkata6Rajkot5Hyderabad5Jaipur3Guwahati3Chandigarh3Kerala1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 35D11Section 143(3)8Disallowance7Depreciation6Section 271(1)(c)5Penalty5Section 35D(2)(c)3Deduction3Addition to Income3

DY. CIT CIRCLE-8,, PUNE vs. M/S. ATLAS COPCO (I) LTD., PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1302/PUN/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1302/Pun/2010 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. M/S. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. Sveanagar, Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012. Pan: Aaaca4074D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R Murlidhar &For Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y Sherpa, CIT
Section 35DSection 35D(2)(c)

35D(2)(c)(iii) of the Act. There is substantial difference between registration of a company and action taken for increase in authorized share capital. In the case of the assessee because of amalgamation proceedings, there was need to increase in authorized share capital and therefore, such expenses cannot be segregated from the main amalgamation proceedings and therefore, these expenses

ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT,CIR-8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1303/PUN/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1302/Pun/2010 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. M/S. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. Sveanagar, Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012. Pan: Aaaca4074D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R Murlidhar &For Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y Sherpa, CIT
Section 35DSection 35D(2)(c)

35D(2)(c)(iii) of the Act. There is substantial difference between registration of a company and action taken for increase in authorized share capital. In the case of the assessee because of amalgamation proceedings, there was need to increase in authorized share capital and therefore, such expenses cannot be segregated from the main amalgamation proceedings and therefore, these expenses

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. MANTRI HOUSING & CONSTRUCTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 1027/PUN/2004[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

35D of the income Tax Act, 1961 was denied to the assessee, as the assessee could not prove the case of expansion of business. 5. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the A.O. be restored.” 6. The case file reveals that these are old matters and they are continuously getting adjourned since 2013. The case

M/S. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. ITO, WD.-3(3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 722/PUN/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

35D of the income Tax Act, 1961 was denied to the assessee, as the assessee could not prove the case of expansion of business. 5. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the A.O. be restored.” 6. The case file reveals that these are old matters and they are continuously getting adjourned since 2013. The case

ACIT, CIR.-1(2),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 351/PUN/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

35D of the income Tax Act, 1961 was denied to the assessee, as the assessee could not prove the case of expansion of business. 5. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the A.O. be restored.” 6. The case file reveals that these are old matters and they are continuously getting adjourned since 2013. The case

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 624/PUN/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

35D of the income Tax Act, 1961 was denied to the assessee, as the assessee could not prove the case of expansion of business. 5. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the A.O. be restored.” 6. The case file reveals that these are old matters and they are continuously getting adjourned since 2013. The case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/PUN/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.425/Pun/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012 Pan: Aaaca4047D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R Murlidhar &For Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y Sherpa
Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 35D(2)(c)

35D(2)(c)(iii) of the Act. There is substantial difference between registration of a company and action taken for increase in authorized share capital. In the case of the assessee because of amalgamation proceedings, there was need to increase in authorized share capital and therefore, such expenses cannot be segregated from the main amalgamation proceedings and therefore, these expenses