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.

2 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 271(1)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,159Mumbai981Bangalore292Karnataka244Ahmedabad186Jaipur168Pune137Chennai117Kolkata113Hyderabad93Indore70Chandigarh55Surat54Calcutta51Raipur29Visakhapatnam26Lucknow25Rajkot23Nagpur19Cochin17Guwahati16Cuttack16Telangana8SC7Agra5Rajasthan4Allahabad3Jodhpur3Amritsar3Punjab & Haryana2Panaji2Dehradun2Andhra Pradesh1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 2633Section 92C3Section 112Section 2712Penalty2

M/S PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, GARHA ROAD , JALANDHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JALANDHAR AND ANR

ITA/271/2014HC Punjab & Haryana04 Dec 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Section 11

1. Brief facts are being, therefore, taken from ITA No. 52 of 2017 for the purpose of adjudication. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jalandhar (for short, ‘the CIT’) vide its order dated 24.10.2013 exercised powers under Section 12AA (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) and cancelled the registration granted to the assessee-society

MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/152/2023HC Punjab & Haryana18 Mar 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Section 120
Section 140
Section 144
Section 263
Section 271
Section 92C

271(E). He takes this Court to the explanation appended to Section 263 explanation-1, to submit that, the instant mention in explanation (A) would be only in the cases where the Pr.CIT would be empowered to review the orders of the CIT. He submits that in this case, the appellant is not falling under Section