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.

3 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 16Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi103Mumbai38Bangalore31Chennai21Kolkata11Surat8Hyderabad8Pune7Cochin7Jaipur4Chandigarh3Ahmedabad3SC3Raipur3Nagpur3Indore2Rajkot2Visakhapatnam1Amritsar1Cuttack1Karnataka1Lucknow1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 1472Section 1482Section 402

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002746-002746 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007
For Respondent: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr

16A, the Valuation Officer may serve a notice upon the assessee. Sub-section (4) thereof empowers the Valuation Officer to serve a notice on the assessee intimating the value which he proposes to estimate and giving the assessee an opportunity to state when he is of the opinion that the value of the asset is higher than the value declare

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

C.A. No.-007865-007865 - 2009Supreme Court29 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 40

16A issued by the company. 4. On 28.10.2005, the assessee-appellant filed its return for the assessment year 2005-2006, showing total income at Rs. 2,89,633/- in the financial year 2004-2005 arising out of the business of ‘transport contract’. 5. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer4 examined the dispatch register maintained by the appellant

M/S. TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV

C.A. No.-007780-007781 - 2010Supreme Court09 Sept 2010
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)

16A in respect of the consideration received by the Governing Board for exercising the right of nomination in respect of the defaulter’s erstwhile right of membership as the same does not belong to the defaulter and the defaulter has no claim, right, title or interest therein.” 11. At the outset we wish to clarify that our present judgment