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.

77 results for “transfer pricing”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,235Delhi562Chennai192Ahmedabad166Hyderabad128Bangalore120Jaipur114Chandigarh103Kolkata99Cochin90Pune88Indore82SC77Rajkot57Surat37Lucknow36Visakhapatnam27Cuttack25Nagpur25Raipur23Guwahati21Amritsar15Agra12A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN9Jodhpur8Patna6Varanasi5Allahabad5Jabalpur2Dehradun2Ranchi2S.B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Exemption22Addition to Income21Section 11A19Penalty17Section 413Deduction12Section 1110Section 809Limitation/Time-bar8Section 3

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR vs. M/S. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD

C.A. No.-001373-001373 - 2002Supreme Court30 Aug 2007
For Respondent: M/s Ballarpur Industries Ltd
Section 35L

price of exempted final product at the time of removal for sale. In the circumstances, the Tribunal erred in holding that Rule 57CC is not applicable to the present case as it involves stock transfer

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

C.A. No.-000262-000262 - 2026Supreme Court15 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

exemption was never intended for the transfer of shares of a company not resident in India. Furthermore, the AAR held that there was no foreign direct investment made by the respondent companies in India and, therefore, no question of participation in investment arose. As there was neither any business operation in India nor any taxable revenue generated, the AAR concluded

Showing 1–20 of 77 · Page 1 of 4

7
Section 143(2)7
Section 80H7

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

C.A. No.-000152-000152 - 2026Supreme Court09 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 47

exemption from tax, of a sum which had been allowed as a trading liability, on accrual basis, in the hands of the transferee company which had ceased to exist. The Revenue disallowed that claim; that view was upheld. This Court stated that : (SCC pp. 679-81, paras 5-6) “5. … In amalgamation two or more companies are fused into

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED

C.A. No.-005409-005409 - 2019Supreme Court25 Jul 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 92C

exemptions from the payment of stamp duty or taxes or any other charges, if payable, in accordance with law. 8 On 2 April 2013, MSIL intimated the assessing officer of the amalgamation. The case was selected for scrutiny by the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) on 26 September 2013, followed by a notice under Section

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE-III,DELHI

C.A. No.-005554-005554 - 2009Supreme Court17 Aug 2009

price, excluding sales tax and other taxes, if any, paid on such goods, of the exempted final product charged by the manufacturer for the sale of such goods at the time of their clearance from the factory; 2 (c) the provider of output service shall utilize credit only to extent of an amount not exceeding twenty per cent

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 for sales tax, freight, discount, TOT, excise duty etc.; that in the price declaration, the assessee had also declared the assessable http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page

DELHI FARMING & CONSTRUCTION(P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and uphold the

C.A. No.-007525-007527 - 2001Supreme Court26 Mar 2003
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI
Section 104

exempted from capital gains and not part of the ’gross income’ or the distributable income for the purpose of section 104 of the Act. The High Court rejected the contention of the appellant-assessee by emphasising that the capital gain was part of assessable income of the assessee, following the view taken by other High Courts as in Cardamom Marketing

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

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX GUJARAT, AHMEDABAD vs. SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, SURAT

- 0Supreme Court19 Nov 1979
For Respondent: SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, SURAT
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 2(15)Section 257

transferred to such other company having the same objects as the assessee, to be determined by the members of the assessee at or before the time of the dissolution or in default? by the High Court of Judicature that has or may acquire jurisdiction in the matter. The income and property of the assessee were thus liable to be applied

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,HYDERABAD-DECCAN vs. MESSRS. VAZIR SULTAN & SONS

The appeal is dismissed with costs throughout

- 0Supreme Court20 Mar 1959
For Respondent: MESSRS. VAZIR SULTAN & SONS

exemption from liability in regard to that income is claimed by the assessee, not on the ground of the applicability of s. 4(3)(vii) of the Income-tax Act but on the ground that it is not a revenue receipt but a capital receipt, being compensation paid by the Company to the assessee for the termination or cancellation

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

price is not the transfer of a chattel qua chattel, the contract is one of work and labour. After referring to the http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 28 earlier decisions of this Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. (1972) 29 STC 474 and the State of Madras

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SUZLON ENERGY LTD

Appeals stand disposed of in terms of

C.A. No.-011400-011401 - 2018Supreme Court10 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 65Section 65(105)(zzzzd)Section 73Section 75Section 76Section 85

transfer of goods for a price cannot be subject to service tax. 4.7 It is submitted that it is true that different aspects of a transaction can be taxed through separate provisions. The aspect theory permits taxation of two different aspects or features of a transaction. For instance, in a catering contract, supply of food was subject to value added

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR-I vs. M/S. INDORAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD

C.A. No.-001834-001834 - 2006Supreme Court21 Aug 2015
Section 4

exempted by the statutory notification issued by the Central Government, being Notification No. 31/1997-CUS, and it is because of the benefit availed by the assessee under this Notification that it is able to effect supply of polyester staple fiber on discounted price to an ultimate exporter holding advance licence. Therefore, the additional discount offered to a customer

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

exemption, sales tax is neither collectable nor payable and if still an assessee collects any amount on the head of sales tax, that would become the price of the goods. Therefore, an incentive scheme of the present nature has to be treated on a different footing because the sales tax is collected and a Page 21 JUDGMENT 21 part

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

exemption in whole or in part by complying with legal provisions (like Section 54-F). 9 (2009) 8 SCC 412 Page 24 JUDGMENT 24 17. Section 45(1) of the 1961 Act speaks about capital gains arising out of “transfer” of a capital asset. The definition of the expression “transfer” is contained in Section

THE MEMBER FOR THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX, ASSAM vs. SMT. SINDHURANI CHAUDHURANI.(with connected appeals)

In the result appeal No. 162 of 1955 brought by the State of

- 0Supreme Court24 Apr 1957
For Respondent: SMT. SINDHURANI CHAUDHURANI.(with connected appeals)

transferred to the Federal Court and was heard by that court as C. A. No. 30 of 1949. That court set aside the judgment of the High Court and http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9 remitted the case to the High Court " to be dealt with again after ascertaining and considering the following additional factors likely

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

exempt   from taxation   under   the   CBR   Notification   No.   35 dated 20­10­1934 and No. 33 dated 18­8­1945.” In paragraphs 9 and 10, this Court proceeded to hold thus: “9. In the instant case the cooperative society (the appellant) is a Bank. One of its objects is to carry  on the  general  business of Banking. Like other Banks money is its stock­in­trade

TEA ESTATE INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

- 0Supreme Court26 Apr 1976
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Section 2Section 2(1)Section 2(3)

price realised over the book value of the lands as shown in the land account balance and as envisaged in the question referred or whether the excess on the sale of the entire tea estates over the book value of the assets are to be considered for inclusion in the accumulated profits under section 2(6A)(c) there

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

In the result, the appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-005167 - 2022Supreme Court05 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 35LSection 65Section 66ESection 73(1)Section 83

exempted excise duty   on   such   “packaged   software   or   canned software”.” 15 24. He vehemently submitted that the transaction cannot be bifurcated into two components as suggested by the revenue i.e. (i) sale of CD, and (ii) supply of updates. In this regard, he submitted as under :­ “7.1 During the arguments, the Department submitted that apart from the sale

HMM LTD. vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

C.A. No.-004081-004081 - 1986Supreme Court11 Oct 1996
For Respondent: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

transferred." (emphasis added) The first proviso to the notification lays down that the procedure set out in the Appendix to the notification will have to be followed for availing of the credit for the duty paid on the inputs. The Appendix provides that +the manufacturer will+have to give a declaration to the Superintendent of Central Excise having jurisdiction over