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.

66 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 40A(2)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi441Mumbai368Bangalore136Ahmedabad115Chennai104Kolkata77Pune66Jaipur47Hyderabad29Raipur24Cochin22Indore20Chandigarh17Surat15Visakhapatnam13Jodhpur12Rajkot9Cuttack9Karnataka5Guwahati4Agra3Calcutta3Nagpur2SC2Lucknow2Amritsar1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Addition to Income56Section 12A39Section 14A35Section 37(1)35Deduction32Section 143(3)31Section 1125Section 10(20)24Section 92B20Section 40A(2)(a)

UTTAM ENERGY LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2033/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act.’ Therefore, the Ld.AR pleaded that the reference and the Transfer Pricing order was void

Showing 1–20 of 66 · Page 1 of 4

19
Disallowance17
Transfer Pricing11

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 670/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

section 40A(2)(a) and estimated GP @0.90% of the total sale as per audited accounts. 21. We find that identical disallowances u/s.40A(2)(a) was made by the Assessing Officer in assessee‟s own case in assessment year 2010-11. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, after taking into consideration entire facts of the case concluded that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 832/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

section 40A(2)(a) and estimated GP @0.90% of the total sale as per audited accounts. 21. We find that identical disallowances u/s.40A(2)(a) was made by the Assessing Officer in assessee‟s own case in assessment year 2010-11. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, after taking into consideration entire facts of the case concluded that

ADIENT INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2986/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Adient India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Plot No.1, S No.235 & 245, Circle-1(1), Pune Hinjewadi, Tal-Mulshi, Pune - 411057 Pan : Aaact6342D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna Revenue By S/Shri Kalika Singh & Madhavan A.M. Krishnan Date Of Hearing 27-05-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31-05-2021 आदेश / Order Per R.S.Syal, Vp : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27-10-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called ‗The Act‘) In Relation To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against Transfer Pricing Addition Of Rs.5,95,39,429. Succinctly, The Factual Matrix Of The Case Is That The Assessee Was Earlier A 50:50 Joint

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

transfer pricing provisions under Chapter X of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2013. The term `SDT‘ has been defined u/s 92BA to include, inter alia, any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred to in section 40A(2)(b

RAJMAL LAKHICHAND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALGAON

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 672/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(a)

section 40A(2)(a) and estimated GP @ 2.75% of the total sale as per audited accounts. 15. We find that identical disallowances u/s.40A(2)(b) was made in the case of M/s. Rajmal Lakhichand a flagship concern of the group in assessment year 2010-11. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, after taking into consideration entire facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 834/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(a)

section 40A(2)(a) and estimated GP @ 2.75% of the total sale as per audited accounts. 15. We find that identical disallowances u/s.40A(2)(b) was made in the case of M/s. Rajmal Lakhichand a flagship concern of the group in assessment year 2010-11. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, after taking into consideration entire facts

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND AND SONS vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1000/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Dr. Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 14ASection 40A(2)(a)

40A(2)(a) by observing as under : “21. We find that identical disallowances u/s.40A(2)(a) was made by the Assessing Officer in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2010-11. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, after taking into consideration entire facts of the case concluded that the average price formula adopted by Assessing Officer and Commissioner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND & SONS vs. JOINT COMMISSINER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1360/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1360/Pun/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Chaware
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36

40A(2)(b) of the Act, the fluctuations in the prices of Bullion, absence of any basis to the AO for adopting profit rate of 6%, absence of any evidence against the assessee, the background history of non-disclosure of such huge GP rate of 6% by the assessee in the past as well as in subsequent assessment years, existence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ,, JALGAON vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND & SONS,,

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1547/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1360/Pun/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Chaware
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36

40A(2)(b) of the Act, the fluctuations in the prices of Bullion, absence of any basis to the AO for adopting profit rate of 6%, absence of any evidence against the assessee, the background history of non-disclosure of such huge GP rate of 6% by the assessee in the past as well as in subsequent assessment years, existence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. R.L. GOLD PVT. LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1069/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Dr. Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 14ASection 40A(2)(a)

40A(2)(a) by observing as under : “21. We find that identical disallowances u/s.40A(2)(a) was made by the Assessing Officer in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2010-11. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, after taking into consideration entire facts of the case concluded that the average price formula adopted by Assessing Officer and Commissioner

R.L. GOLD PVT. LTD. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1001/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Dr. Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 14ASection 40A(2)(a)

40A(2)(a) by observing as under : “21. We find that identical disallowances u/s.40A(2)(a) was made by the Assessing Officer in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2010-11. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, after taking into consideration entire facts of the case concluded that the average price formula adopted by Assessing Officer and Commissioner

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JALNA, JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2285/PUN/2024[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri J P BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremeth, Addl CIT
Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 92A(2)(a)Section 92BSection 92C

b) of sub-section (2) of section 40A." He submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, in response to the notice issued under section 142(1) read with section 129 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 01.11.2016, the assessee company vide letter dated 10.11.2016 had submitted the Tax Audit Report of the assessee company along with

INCOME TAX OFFICER , JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED , JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 685/PUN/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri J P BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremeth, Addl CIT
Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 92A(2)(a)Section 92BSection 92C

b) of sub-section (2) of section 40A." He submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, in response to the notice issued under section 142(1) read with section 129 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 01.11.2016, the assessee company vide letter dated 10.11.2016 had submitted the Tax Audit Report of the assessee company along with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE vs. SPICER INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 580/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri R.D. OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Kalika Singh
Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92C

pricing provisions are wider than not only section 37 but also section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Further, he submits that section 37(1) of the Act only requires that the expenditure should be incurred wholly exclusively for the purpose of business but the transfer