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.

14 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 3clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,527Mumbai5,364Bangalore2,048Chennai1,147Kolkata977Ahmedabad827Karnataka803Hyderabad802Pune790Jaipur482Surat328Chandigarh308Indore288Cochin244Visakhapatnam145Rajkot142SC132Telangana108Lucknow92Nagpur89Cuttack88Calcutta76Raipur72Amritsar55Agra38Dehradun38Guwahati38Jodhpur38Jabalpur18A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN17Ranchi15Rajasthan14Kerala13Varanasi13Panaji13Allahabad12Patna11Orissa9Punjab & Haryana4Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1S.B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1

Key Topics

Section 2603Section 1073Section 472Capital Gains2Exemption2Comparables/TP2

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

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

3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions of Section 153C of the I.T. Act. Placing

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

ITA/322/2017HC Rajasthan09 Jul 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Section 96

3) What is the effect, if any, of issuance of the cheque for Rs.4.50 lac by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff? OPP. (4) Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement to sell? OPP. (5) Whether the discretion in the grant of the relief of specific performance is to be exercised

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

ITA/94/2020HC Rajasthan21 Feb 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

3 Joint APLs and such inventory was made pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 23rd August, 2012. Further, the Hon'ble Division Bench in the order dated 4th May, 2020 held that the unanimous report of Joint ALPs has not been disputed. Further, the inventory of assets records the share holding held by the estate

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

ITA/9/2020HC Rajasthan24 Aug 2023

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

3 Joint APLs and such inventory was made pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 23rd August, 2012. Further, the Hon'ble Division Bench in the order dated 4th May, 2020 held that the unanimous report of Joint ALPs has not been disputed. Further, the inventory of assets records the share holding held by the estate

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 OFFICER To, '1. The lncome Tax Apellate Tribunal, Bench 'A', Hyderabad 2. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax(Transfer Pricing), Hyderabad 3

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)

Section 143(3) of the Act on the basis of the return filed by the assessee showing the amount received on sale of certain properties and claiming exemption from capital gains alleging it to be sale of agricultural land. The AO found that the properties were acquired between 1992-93 to 1997-98 as also a solitary purchase

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

ITA/94/2024HC Rajasthan26 Sept 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Section 260

TRANSFERRED FROM DCIT CIRCLE-5 AHMEDABAD PRESENT ADDRESS DCIT CIRCLE 3(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI N.,ADVOCATE) AND: IQVIA RDS (INDIA) PVT LTD (EARLIER QUINTILES RESEARCH INDIA PVT LTD AND ITS SUCCESSOR), II FLOOR, ETAMIN BLOCK, PRESTIGE TECHNOLOGY PARK-II, SARJAPUR-MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD, BENGALURU

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

3. The free movement of personal data within the Union shall be neither restricted nor prohibited for reasons connected with the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data. Article 4: Definitions: Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:08.01.2026 18:27:10 Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 82/2020 Page 57 of 241 4(5). ‘pseudonymisation’ means

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

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

ITA/81/2024HC Rajasthan15 Oct 2024

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Section 10

3. B its return of capital loss du and General M that capital lo of M/s Var Rs.9,87,485/- 1961 (for sho IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA I D oner of Income Tax-1 Ludhiana Vs. h Investment & Training Co LP), Ludhiana HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN Mr. Ranvijay Singh