BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

4 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 4clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,416Delhi2,289Chennai512Hyderabad469Bangalore431Ahmedabad336Kolkata252Jaipur249Chandigarh184Pune183SC180Indore145Cochin126Rajkot109Surat103Visakhapatnam67Nagpur66Lucknow50Raipur48Cuttack37Amritsar32Jodhpur29Guwahati27Agra25Dehradun25A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN17Jabalpur11Patna10Varanasi7Panaji7Allahabad5Ranchi4DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1S.B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 2634Transfer Pricing3Addition to Income3Disallowance2

TATA CUMMINS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1-JAMSHEDPUR AND THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 430/RAN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaytata Cummins Private Limited, D.C.I.T., Cummins India Office, Tower-A, 7Th Circle-1, Vs. Floor, Survey No. 21, Balewadi, Pune, Jamshedpur. Maharashtra. Pan No. Aaact 6353 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

4 Tata Cummins Vs DCIT (ii) the expression intangible property" shall include— (b) technology related intangible assets, such as, process patents, patent applications, technical documentation such as laboratory notebooks, technical know-how .................... 9.14 At the very outset, it would be seen that under the definition of the term international transaction the purchase, sale, transfer, lease or use of intangible property

TIMKEN INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 92/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi
12 Jun 2025
AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri K.M.Gupta/Krishan Shaw, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234D

4 is in regard to the transfer pricing addition. Ground No.5.1 and 5.2 related to the disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act, both under the normal provisions of the Act as well as in respect of book profit computed under section

ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY,DHANBAD vs. PR. CIT, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 11/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, [including

M/S USHA MARTIN LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIR-3, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 68/RAN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Aditya Hans/Vishal Jain and Ashis JainFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT DR
Section 234Section 244A

transfer pricing, it was submitted that the assessee is in the business of manufacture of steel wire, steel ropes, wire rods, billets, wires, and other steel products etc. It was the submission that the products manufactured by the assessee was in the realm of steel. The assessee had provided its TNMM calculation and had given multiple