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 6(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,306Mumbai5,247Bangalore2,033Chennai1,116Kolkata963Ahmedabad825Pune782Hyderabad776Karnataka724Jaipur482Surat325Chandigarh323Indore287Cochin243Visakhapatnam141Rajkot137SC124Telangana105Lucknow92Cuttack87Nagpur87Calcutta72Raipur72Amritsar55Jodhpur38Agra38Guwahati38Dehradun37A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN17Jabalpur16Ranchi14Panaji13Varanasi13Allahabad12Rajasthan12Kerala11Patna10Orissa9Punjab & Haryana3Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1S.B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)13Addition to Income11Section 406Section 2635Section 1474Section 1483Short Term Capital Gains3Transfer Pricing3Section 54

M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.,PALAMAU vs. ACIT, RANCHI

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 126/RAN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40

1 to 6. 39. At the outset itself we note that the AO could have ventured into estimation only after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee u/s 145(3) and thereafter by best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Here in this case, the AO has not passed any order

ACIT, RANCHI vs. M/S M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD., PALAMAU

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

2
Section 50C2
Long Term Capital Gains2
Disallowance2
ITA 136/RAN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40

1 to 6. 39. At the outset itself we note that the AO could have ventured into estimation only after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee u/s 145(3) and thereafter by best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Here in this case, the AO has not passed any order

M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.,PALAMAU vs. ACIT, RANCHI

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 125/RAN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40

1 to 6. 39. At the outset itself we note that the AO could have ventured into estimation only after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee u/s 145(3) and thereafter by best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Here in this case, the AO has not passed any order

ACIT, RANCHI vs. M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD., PALAMAU

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 137/RAN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40

1 to 6. 39. At the outset itself we note that the AO could have ventured into estimation only after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee u/s 145(3) and thereafter by best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Here in this case, the AO has not passed any order

M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.,PALAMAU vs. ACIT, RANCHI

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 127/RAN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40

1 to 6. 39. At the outset itself we note that the AO could have ventured into estimation only after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee u/s 145(3) and thereafter by best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Here in this case, the AO has not passed any order

ACIT, RANCHI vs. M/S M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD., PALAMAU

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 131/RAN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40

1 to 6. 39. At the outset itself we note that the AO could have ventured into estimation only after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee u/s 145(3) and thereafter by best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Here in this case, the AO has not passed any order

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

1) 5CC 467 wherein it was held that the charge of excise duty is 6 Tata Cummins Vs DCIT on manufacture while the measure of the tax is the selling price of the manufactured goods. In this case also the charge is on income as understood in the Act, and where income arises from an International Transaction, then the measure

OM PRAAKSH SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/RAN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Om Prakash Singh Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sankalp, East Jail Road, Ranchi- 834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agkps0300D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manjit Verma, A/RFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mohanti, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234CSection 263Section 37(1)

6 Om Prakash Singh Assessment Year: 2009-10 We note that the assessee filed its original return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 on 25.09.2009. The said return of income was processed by the Department u/s 143(1) of the Act on 07.10.2010. Then the assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny under section

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 Ranchi12 Jun 2025AY 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

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 115JB of the Act. In regard to Ground No.6, it was the submission that this issue related to the incorrect payment of refund

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

6 Ashok Kr. Pandey Vs PCIT made by the Assessing Officer regarding high closing stock, payment to land owners of ₹ 31,06,375/- and source of advance of ₹ 3,42,27,450/-. In response to the query made by the Bench that why the ld. PCIT himself did not make the enquiries during the proceedings under Section 263 as provided

SRI NALIN RANJAN,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WD-1(3), JSR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 331/RAN/2017[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Aug 2019

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 50C

transfer of land & building belonging to the assessee. P a g e 1 | 7 Ass essment Year : 2014 -15 3. For that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the cost of construction at Rs.750/- per sq.ft determined arbitrarily by the AO and also by upholding the method of computing capital gain as employed by the AO notwithstanding that the question

ASHOK BEHL,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 78/RAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Ashok Behl Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Ranchi 1St Floor, Samridhi Complex, South Office Para, Doranda, Ranchi – 834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adwpb2438E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. Sannigarh, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mohanti, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. (ii) Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property or in the case of reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. (iii) Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession

SUNITA ADUKIA,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 15/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 54

1 | 17 ITA No.14 & 15/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 similar as the land on which construction of flat was done was purchased by Smt. Asha Devi Adukia on 10.11.1981 jointly with Rajesh Adukia, who gifted her part of the land with building to her son Prakash Kumar Adukia on 20.11.2006. For the sake of convenience of adjudication, we are taking

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