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 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai130Delhi81Ahmedabad71Chandigarh64Chennai52Hyderabad34Kolkata32Bangalore32Jaipur19Jodhpur10Visakhapatnam10Raipur10Pune8Indore5Lucknow5Karnataka4Guwahati3SC3Surat3Cuttack2Amritsar2Cochin2Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 652Addition to Income2

COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S CITIBANK N.A

C.A. No.-008228 - 2019Supreme Court09 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Section 35L(1)(b)Section 64(3)Section 65Section 65(10)Section 65(105)Section 65(12)Section 65(7)Section 83

VA of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short). Section 64(3) provides that the Chapter V, shall apply to taxable services provided on or after the commencement of the Chapter. The appointed day is 01.07.1994. Section 65 is the definition clause. Section 65, after being substituted by Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 14.05.2003, inter alia

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

C.A. No.-012044-012044 - 2016Supreme Court22 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

va) by Finance Act 20 of 2002 with effect from the aforesaid date, any sum received under an agreement for not carrying out any activity in relation to any business was taxed, for the first time, under this provision and the provision not being retrospective would not apply to the facts of the present case. 11. Shri Arijit Prasad, learned

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (PORT), CHENNAI vs. M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PVT. LTD

C.A. No.-003635-003635 - 2006Supreme Court17 May 2007
For Respondent: M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd

VA, this Court observed : "\005This agreement with V.A. recites that the plant, when it was bought, had a rated capacity of 8,00,000 tpy DRI http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 14 under the prevailing operating conditions based on the Midrex Process. It was recited that the Collaborator (V.A.) was holding construction licence and rights