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.

6 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 127(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi731Mumbai490Karnataka295Bangalore196Ahmedabad139Jaipur134Hyderabad107Kolkata72Chandigarh71Cochin71Chennai66Indore58Calcutta54Pune42Cuttack26Surat25Raipur21Lucknow17Visakhapatnam13SC13Jodhpur12Agra11Telangana11Nagpur10Rajkot6Varanasi5Rajasthan4Amritsar3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Allahabad2Jabalpur2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)7Section 2634Deduction4Disallowance4Natural Justice4Section 2502Section 1482

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

ITA 44/RJT/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

price. As per IT Act, any purchase in cash above Rs. 20,000 (now 10,000) is not permitted. Buyers across India deposit the cash purchase- amount into the bank-account of self-styled Angadiya/shroff, who remitted cash to seller, after deducting commission. In certain instances, such Bank-accounts were also used for layering and delayering of funds

M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot
08 Jul 2022
AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

127 the Hon'ble Madras High Court while deciding an exactly identical issue has held as under:- "The Tribunal pointed out that the Assessing Officer has not at all examined the aspect with regard to the admissibility of the sum shown as provision for warranty cost. It further also pointed out that the method as projected by the assessee

THE DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

127 the Hon'ble Madras High Court while deciding an exactly identical issue has held as under:- "The Tribunal pointed out that the Assessing Officer has not at all examined the aspect with regard to the admissibility of the sum shown as provision for warranty cost. It further also pointed out that the method as projected by the assessee

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 156/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

127 the Hon'ble Madras High Court while deciding an exactly identical issue has held as under:- "The Tribunal pointed out that the Assessing Officer has not at all examined the aspect with regard to the admissibility of the sum shown as provision for warranty cost. It further also pointed out that the method as projected by the assessee

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

127 the Hon'ble Madras High Court while deciding an exactly identical issue has held as under:- "The Tribunal pointed out that the Assessing Officer has not at all examined the aspect with regard to the admissibility of the sum shown as provision for warranty cost. It further also pointed out that the method as projected by the assessee

KIRAN HARUBHAI DANGAR,JUNAGADH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, RAJKOT

ITA 368/RJT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153BSection 153CSection 250Section 69

transferred on 20/01/2012 in the name of Kiranbhal Harubhol Dangor & Sadgunaben Kiritbhai Bhutaiya for a sum of Rs. 4,51,000/- only. Therefore, all the details given in Satakhat has been found correct from records of revenue officials. Hence, this is abundantly clear that the details written in Satakhat are correct and hence the whole transaction amount