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.

11 results for “transfer pricing”+ Business Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,956Delhi4,928Bangalore2,074Chennai1,050Kolkata952Ahmedabad694Hyderabad688Pune588Jaipur432Karnataka343Chandigarh246Indore243Cochin224Surat145Visakhapatnam135Rajkot115Telangana77Cuttack73Calcutta69SC64Nagpur63Lucknow61Raipur56Amritsar45Guwahati37Jodhpur31Agra31Dehradun21Ranchi14Varanasi13Panaji12Rajasthan11Jabalpur11Allahabad11Patna10Kerala9Orissa5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Punjab & Haryana3A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 1073Section 472Capital Gains2Exemption2

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S ROYAL JEWELLERS

ITA/81/2024HC Rajasthan15 Oct 2024

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Section 10

price a he notional net business loss. Briefly the facts of the case are income in the status of Investm ue to fall in value of equity sha Mills Limited, amounting to Rs. oss on account of sale of non-co rdhman Spinning and Gener and also claimed exemption un ort ‘the Act, 1961’) of an amoun NJAB AND HARYANA

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT LTD

ITA/6/2021HC Rajasthan01 Nov 2022

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

transfer cannot be treated as 'income from capital gain'. The CIT(A) treated it as "income from other sources" so as to tax the same. This finding of the CIT(A) is not proper. The assesses herein were holding trusteeship in the Carmel Educational Trust which was relinquished in favour of trustees of Believers Church, and this right is nothing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I vs. M/S P.R. ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD.

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA/354/2018HC Rajasthan15 Mar 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,BHUWAN GOYAL

Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA read with Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules. So far as Keynote Corporate Service Ltd. is concerned, the ITAT appears to have excluded that entity from the list of comparables on the ground that for the present as also the previous year, the entity had reported abnormally high profits. The Revenue correctly

C I TEXEMPTIONS JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

ITA/113/2016HC Rajasthan02 Aug 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

For Appellant: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: SHRI.JOHN POOMKUDY
Section 143(3)Section 2(13)

business of the assessee. 5. The Tribunal extracted the findings of the first appellate authority and accepted it. We find that the Tribunal had committed a mistake in observing that the properties purchased prior to 15 years was sold to an individual who, later, transferred the property to the builder. However, the mistake so committed would not be so I.T.A.No

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. NAMITA CHHABRA

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

ITA/15/2021HC Rajasthan06 May 2022

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

Section 107

price. 27. In that view of the matter, as it is admitted case of the petitioner that the electricity generated in 540 MW Power Plant is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer i.e. the petitioner herein, the petitioner would not be entitled for ITC to electrical

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. NAMITA CHHABRA

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

ITA/14/2021HC Rajasthan06 May 2022

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

Section 107

price. 27. In that view of the matter, as it is admitted case of the petitioner that the electricity generated in 540 MW Power Plant is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer i.e. the petitioner herein, the petitioner would not be entitled for ITC to electrical

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SAMARPAN SYNTHETICS PVT LTD

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

ITA/17/2021HC Rajasthan04 Mar 2022

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

Section 107

price. 27. In that view of the matter, as it is admitted case of the petitioner that the electricity generated in 540 MW Power Plant is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer i.e. the petitioner herein, the petitioner would not be entitled for ITC to electrical

ANKIT CHIRAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. vs. ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/5/2019HC Rajasthan22 Feb 2021

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

For Appellant: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate
Section 47

price during the pendency of ligation. It was accordingly held that what has to be seen is that who is the defaulting party and whether the party is taking undue advantage over the other and the hardship that may be caused to either of the parties. 14. It was held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY (P) LTD.

ITA/82/2020HC Rajasthan14 Feb 2022

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

business entity. Thus, in case of corporate or other non-natural business entity, the disclosure of data relating to the Registrant of the infringing domain name would not be covered by the GDPR. 96. She makes reference to Article 4 of GDPR to explain the process of ‘pseudonymisation’. Further, attention of the Court is also drawn to Article

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL, vs. MS. HARSHITA MAHESHWARI,

ITA/94/2020HC Rajasthan21 Feb 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

prices of shares of those companies which are authorized in the (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 86 of 300 stock exchange have gone up substantially in BCrL, UCL, VTL and BCL and dividends have been consistently declared by those companies. Further, there are no ground for opposing the re-appointment

M/S FINGROWTH COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/9/2020HC Rajasthan24 Aug 2023

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

prices of shares of those companies which are authorized in the (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 86 of 300 stock exchange have gone up substantially in BCrL, UCL, VTL and BCL and dividends have been consistently declared by those companies. Further, there are no ground for opposing the re-appointment