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.

67 results for “transfer pricing”+ Deductionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,362Delhi3,067Bangalore1,477Chennai828Kolkata645Ahmedabad597Pune516Hyderabad464Karnataka400Jaipur338Chandigarh250Cochin192Indore170Surat102Rajkot95Visakhapatnam92Cuttack74SC67Telangana57Lucknow48Raipur45Nagpur41Amritsar35Calcutta31Agra29Jodhpur29Dehradun21Ranchi13Varanasi12Kerala11Panaji11Guwahati11Jabalpur11Allahabad10A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN7Rajasthan7Patna4Orissa4T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Punjab & Haryana1DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Deduction23Section 80H18Section 8017Addition to Income16Section 35A13Section 11A10Section 41(2)10Section 1110Section 47Section 17(5)(d)

M/S. MODIPON FIBRE COMPANY vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT

C.A. No.-008529-008531 - 2001Supreme Court25 Oct 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise,Meerut
Section 35LSection 4

transferred to its depot in Surat for sale therefrom; that in the said price declaration, the assessee had indicated variety-wise ex-depot sale price, amount of various deductions

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS vs. M/S. FERODO INDIA PVT. LTD

C.A. No.-008426-008426 - 2002Supreme Court21 Feb 2008
For Respondent: M/s Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd
Section 14

deductive and computed value methods, which methods are akin to resale price method and cost plus method under the transfer

Showing 1–20 of 67 · Page 1 of 4

7
Exemption7
Penalty5

ASSTT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX I NEW DELHI vs. M/S E FUNDS IT SOLUTION INC

C.A. No.-006082-006082 - 2015Supreme Court24 Oct 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

deductible expenses, carry- forward and set-off losses, etc. However, deviations are made by DTAA in cases of royalty, interest, etc. Such deviations are also made under the IT Act (for example Sections 44-BB, 44-BBA, etc.). 36. Under the impugned ruling delivered by AAR, remuneration to MSAS was justified by a transfer pricing

M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

C.A. No.-001959-001959 - 2006Supreme Court25 Aug 2015
Section 11ASection 11A(1)Section 38ASection 4

transfers, the appellant filed declarations under Rule 173C with the excise department. In these declarations, the appellant claimed deduction towards Sales Tax, Cash Discount and Volume Discount on excise duty payable to arrive at the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. 3. Apart from undertaking manufacturing activities, the appellant at times also receives

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

C.A. No.-013771-013771 - 2015Supreme Court06 Dec 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Section 260ASection 80

transfer of power by the assessee from its power plants to its industrial units should have been Rs. 2.32 per unit being the price at which power was sold to the State Electricity Board and not Rs. 3.72 being the price charged by the State 14 Electricity Board. Assessing officer therefore recomputed the deduction

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UDAIPUR vs. M/S CHETAK ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD

The appeal stands dismissed with no order

C.A. No.-001764-001764 - 2010Supreme Court05 Mar 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

Section 80

deduction under this section, the   profits   and   gains   of   such   eligible   business   shall   be computed as if the transfer, in either case, had been made at the market value of such goods as on that date: 9 Provided that where, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the   computation   of   the   profits   and   gains   of   the   eligible business

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR vs. M/S. SUPER SYNOTEX (INDIA) LTD.

In the result, both sets of appeals stand disposed of

C.A. No.-009154-009156 - 2003Supreme Court28 Feb 2014
Section 35L

deduction under Section 4 as is equal to the amount legally permissible under the local sales tax laws to be charged/billed from the customer/ buyer.” [Emphasis added] 22. It is evincible from the language employed in the aforesaid circular that set off is to be taken into account for calculating the amount of sales tax permissible for arriving

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-003291-003294 - 2009Supreme Court16 Oct 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Section 18Section 19Section 20Section 21

transferred before and (ii) if they are purchased at their cost price or face value. 22. At this stage, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the   case   of  Commissioner   of   Income   Tax   (Central), Calcutta v. Associated Industrial Development Company (P) Ltd., Calcutta10.   In the said decision, this Court held that   whether   a   particular   holding   of   shares

M/S. TATA CHEMICALS LTD. vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

The appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-007251-007302 - 2000Supreme Court06 Aug 2015
Section 4

transfer the title in the packing material to the buyer. The seller retains the property in the packing material. In such circumstances irrespective of the actual return of the packing material by the buyer to the seller, the seller, not having effect the sale of packing material, was not required to include the cost of packing material in the cost

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-000634-000634 - 2006Supreme Court11 Jan 2010
Section 48(2)

transfer and the cost of acquisition of the asset, a further deduction, as specified in Section 48(2) of the Act, which is similar to standard deduction, becomes necessary. The basic controversy in this batch of civil appeals concerns the stage at which Section 48(2) of the Act becomes applicable. For that purpose, we annex hereinbelow a chart indicating

COMMNR.,INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR

C.A. No.-005173-005173 - 2007Supreme Court13 Nov 2007
For Respondent: K. Ravindranathan Nair
Section 28Section 80H

price or an item incidental to the transfer of the goods dealt with by the assessee. According to High Court, the assessee had processed raw cashew nuts belonging to third parties in his factory for which he received the said charges; that, the purpose behind the said formula was to find out the profits attributable to export turnover i.e. profit

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

C.A. No.-002377-002377 - 2020Supreme Court29 Apr 2020

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(2)Section 244ASection 92

Transfer Pricing Adjustment, Capitalization of Licence Fees, 3G Spectrum Fees, Asset Restoration Cost Obligation including the effect of amalgamation of group entities which required thorough scrutiny and determination. G] During the pendency of said Writ Petition, a letter was issued by the respondent No.1 on 23.07.2018, the relevant portion of which was as under :- "The assessment years for which request

M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CUSTOMS

Appeals are dismissed but in

C.A. No.-000821-000821 - 2000Supreme Court25 Jan 2001
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

deducted. In the alternative it was contended that even if the transactions are composite the court has to determine whether these relate to contract for service or goods. In this connection, it was submitted that when price is paid for photograph, the payment is not for paper which is developed but is for the skill of the photographer

M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. (UNIT BHILAI STEEL PLANT) ISPAT BHAWAN . THROUGH ITS SR. MANAGER (F AND A) vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR

C.A. No.-002150-002150 - 2012Supreme Court08 May 2019

Bench: Us. 2. Very Briefly Put, The Question Which We Are Called Upon To Consider & Resolve Is As To Whether Interest Is Payable On The Differential Excise Duty With Retrospective Effect That Become Payable On The Basis Of Escalation Clause Under Section 11Ab Of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 3. In This Batch Of Appeals, We Will Treat C.A. No.2150/2012 As The Leading Case. We Will Refer To The Said Case As The Sail Case. In The Said Case Originally, The Appellant Company Which Is Manufacturer Of Various Products Including Rail

Section 11Section 11A

deducted from the sale price in order to arrive at the value of excisable goods “at the time of removal”. 24. No doubt, there are decisions of the High Court which followed in MRF Ltd. [see 2007 (207) ELT 31, Punjab and Haryana] to the effect that a subsequent reduction in prices would not entitle the assessee

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-001234-001234 - 2012Supreme Court18 Oct 2016
Section 260Section 583(4)(a)

deductions therefrom.” In para 45 of the judgment, the Court also stated that capital gains under Section 45 of the Act are not income accruing from day to day. It is deemed income which arises at a fixed point of time, viz. on the date of transfer. 28) When we apply the said legal principle to the facts

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND C.E.NAGPUR vs. M/S. ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD

C.A. No.-000637-000637 - 2007Supreme Court07 Oct 2015
Section 4

transferred to the buyer at the factory gate. It was also held that in the order acceptance form, it was mentioned that the transport would be by Ispat. Thus, Ispat had assumed responsibility of transportation of the goods up to the door of 4 Page 5 JUDGMENT the customers. Further, that the purchase orders as well as the agreement with

WIPRO LTD. vs. ASST. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to

C.A. No.-009766-009775 - 2003Supreme Court16 Apr 2015
Section 14Section 14(1)Section 156Section 22

deductive value and the best judgment assessment, Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 27 of 37 Page 28 JUDGMENT as a last resort. 27) In the present case, we are concerned with the amount payable for costs and services. Rule 9 which is incorporated in the Valuation Rules and pertains to costs and services also contains

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

C.A. No.-002664-002664 - 2011Supreme Court21 Nov 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

Section 80

deduction while computing 16 the assessee’s tax liability. The provisions of a tax statute are interpreted strictly, and the literal meaning of the expression “derived from” ought not to be confused with the words “attributable to”. Interpreting literally, it is contended that the words “derived from” mentioned in sub-sections (1) and (3) would be the deciding factor whether

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. DETERGENTS INDIA LTD

C.A. No.-009049-009051 - 2003Supreme Court08 Apr 2015

Bench: Cegat Was Also Dismissed By The Impugned Judgment Dated 22.4.2003. 2

Section 4Section 4(1)(a)Section 4(4)(c)

transferred from one company to another; depots of Shaw Wallace and DIL were in the same premises; DIL sends monthly newsletters to Shaw Wallace showing production, despatches, purpose, technical problems, quality problems, details of power consumption etc. - and Shaw Wallace fixes the price of DIL products; and unsecured loans of approximately Rs.55 lakhs were given by Shaw Wallace

M/S. SANJEEV WOOLEN MILLS vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs

C.A. No.-006735-006736 - 2003Supreme Court24 Nov 2005
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai
Section 80

deduction benefit under Section 80HH (C) of the Income Tax Act. While framing the question of law the High Court has also framed a question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in holding that the higher market rate of valuation of closing stock adopted by the assessee was correct, without