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.

8 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 35(1)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,461Mumbai2,048Bangalore955Ahmedabad422Chennai376Kolkata374Karnataka358Hyderabad346Jaipur284Pune260Chandigarh209Surat192Indore173Cochin154Rajkot76SC62Calcutta55Visakhapatnam49Raipur48Lucknow46Telangana46Cuttack45Guwahati25Nagpur22Jodhpur19Agra14Amritsar13Dehradun11Varanasi9Ranchi8Rajasthan8Patna6Kerala6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Allahabad5Orissa4Panaji3D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Punjab & Haryana1Jabalpur1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 1073Section 472

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

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

ITA/94/2020HC Rajasthan21 Feb 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

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

ITA/9/2020HC Rajasthan24 Aug 2023

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

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

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

35 of 241 • NIXI cannot block domains in a blanket manner, as the same is against NIXI’s policy framework, however it can block websites as per Court orders; • NIXI has market operations with DNRs located both within and outside India through Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAA), whereby all DNR is mandated to share information of the domains with NIXI

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

1 that though the jurisdiction to decree a suit for specific performance is discretionary yet that discretion should not be arbitrary but should be sound and reasonable and has to be guided by judicial principles and the plaintiff is not to be denied the relief of specific performance merely on account of the phenomenal increase of price during the pendency