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”+ Section 21clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,966Mumbai3,531Bangalore1,513Chennai699Ahmedabad627Kolkata588Hyderabad573Pune525Karnataka447Jaipur378Chandigarh270Surat267Indore237Cochin175Rajkot94Visakhapatnam90SC84Cuttack74Telangana67Calcutta66Nagpur58Lucknow58Raipur56Agra35Amritsar33Guwahati27Jodhpur25Dehradun18A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN12Rajasthan11Jabalpur11Ranchi11Varanasi10Panaji10Patna7Allahabad7Orissa7Kerala6Punjab & Haryana2Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 1073Section 472

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S TIRUPATI BALAJI ESTATES PVT. LTD.

ITA/113/2019HC Rajasthan08 Feb 2022

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

For Appellant: Sri K. Sudhakar Reddy, Standing Counsel for lTFor Respondent: Sri Santosh Sagar Kapilavai
Section 260Section 260A

section 2604 of the rncome Tax Act, 1g61 against the order daled 10-12-2014 in lrA No.518/Hydi2014 on the file of the lncome Tax Apellate Tribunal, Bench 'A', Hyderabad for the assessment year 2OOg-2010, preferred against the order dated 21-o1-20'13 in pAN No. AADCM3491M on the file of the Additional commissioner of lncome Tax(Transfer

M/S SARAF SEASONING UDYOG vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR

ITA/322/2017HC Rajasthan09 Jul 2024

AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Bench:
Section 96

prices of property on the date of breach being the amount which the plaintiff would be entitled to as damages.” 10.10 In the instant case, the plaintiff has not been able to show his financial capacity to carry out the terms of the agreement to sell. He has to show continuous readiness and willingness as a condition precedent to grant

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

21 of 32 {W.P.(T)Nos.14/2021, 15/2021, 16/2021, 17/2021 & 18/2021} at the contractual rates in favour of joint ventures, vendors, etc., which is sold at a 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

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

21 of 32 {W.P.(T)Nos.14/2021, 15/2021, 16/2021, 17/2021 & 18/2021} at the contractual rates in favour of joint ventures, vendors, etc., which is sold at a 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

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

21 of 32 {W.P.(T)Nos.14/2021, 15/2021, 16/2021, 17/2021 & 18/2021} at the contractual rates in favour of joint ventures, vendors, etc., which is sold at a 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

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-1 vs. M/S ROYAL JEWELLERS

ITA/81/2024HC Rajasthan15 Oct 2024

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Section 10

Section 10 (2A) of the Act, nt of Rs.75,936/- from share of r e e n n d d g d s o , f RAJESH KUMAR 2024.07.29 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. ITA-81-2024 income from Rs.2,04,41,88 head ‘capital g 4. T referred

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

ITA/94/2020HC Rajasthan21 Feb 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

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

ITA/9/2020HC Rajasthan24 Aug 2023

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

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

Sections 2(h), 2(j), 2(n), 2(t), 2(u) & 2(x). It is argued that in terms of the said provisions information of Registrants would be clearly covered and thus would have to be protected from disclosure. The said sections are extracted hereinunder for ease of reference: “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (h) “data