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.

2 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 63clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,734Delhi1,712Bangalore594Chennai372Ahmedabad331Karnataka317Kolkata260Jaipur248Hyderabad248Pune189Surat186Indore146Chandigarh128Cochin114Calcutta57Rajkot46Lucknow45Raipur34Visakhapatnam32SC30Telangana28Nagpur21Cuttack20Jodhpur19Rajasthan7Amritsar6Dehradun5Allahabad5Panaji5Agra4Varanasi4Orissa3Jabalpur2Guwahati2Ranchi2Kerala2Punjab & Haryana1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Andhra Pradesh1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)2Section 542

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

transfer pricing administration. India believes that shareholder services. duplicate services and incidental benefit from group services do not give rise to intro-group services requiring arm's length remuneration." This view of the Indian Tax Administration that incidental benefit does not require any compensation has been upheld by various Courts in India. 10.7 The Hon'ble High Court

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

price. (iv) For that the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the Long Term Capital Gains as Short Term Capital Gain is bad in law as well as in facts and against the Principles of natural justice and therefore liable to be set aside. P a g e 2 | 17 ITA No.14 & 15/Ran/2018 Assessment