Search: transfer pricing | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

7 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 5Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka290 Pune77 Mumbai75 Delhi63 Hyderabad42 Bangalore32 Raipur17 Kolkata14 Jaipur10 Chennai8 SC7 Surat5 Telangana3 Rajkot2 Ahmedabad2 Lucknow1 Chandigarh1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 11A8 Section 144C6 Section 114 Section 652 Section 1532 Section 153(1)2 Section 32 Section 452 Penalty2 Addition to Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-010586-010589 - 2025Supreme Court08 Aug 2025

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

Section 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 44B

section (3). (5A) Where the Transfer Pricing Officer gives effect to an order or direction under section 263 by an order

RAJ PAL SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HARYANA

In the result, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed

C.A. No.-002416-002416 - 2010Supreme Court

2

Limitation/Time-bar2

25 Aug 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 256(1)Section 4Section 45Section 6

price of the land fixed by the Collector to the land owners. From the copy of the jamabandi attached with this file, khasra Nos. 361 and 364 measuring 5 kanals and 7 marlas were not on the lease with the college. But the Management is claiming compensation for this land also. In these circumstances, the college management cannot be awarded

COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE,NAGPUR vs. M/S UNIVERSAL FERRO & ALLIED CHEM.LD.&AN

C.A. No.-000848-000852 - 2009Supreme Court06 Mar 2020

Bench: This Court. 2. The Facts In Brief Giving Rise To The Present Appeals Are As Under:

transfer to another division / unit of the same company.” 40. We will now deal with the next submission made by Shri K. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel, to the effect that under proviso to subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, an EOU is liable to pay duty on the goods brought

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

transfers. 40. It is no doubt true that the accrual of income does not much later depend upon its ascertainment or the accounts cast by assessee. The accounts may be made up at a much later date. That depends upon the convenience of the assessee and also upon the exigencies of the situation. The amount of the income, profits

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S NESTLE INDIA LTD

C.A. No.-000951-000951 - 2008Supreme Court24 Nov 2015

Section 11ASection 3Section 38A

transferred only to two sister concerns and no sale is involved, the assessable value of instant tea removed to the respondent’s own units would be determined on the basis of the export price of similar goods and not 115% of the cost of production. 2 Page 3 JUDGMENT 3. The order in original dated 31.5.2006 passed by the Additional

ANJALEEM ENTERPISES PVT. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD

C.A. No.-002487-002487 - 2000Supreme Court16 Jan 2006

For Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad

Section 11ASection 35

5A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts computer software, falling under Heading No.85.24 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon which

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

Section 66 B accompanied by the definition of service under Section 65B (44) and the legislature further providing for the negative 80 list of services which stood excluded from the levy of service tax in Section 66 D, the question would only be whether there is any service and whether it is excluded under Section 66 D. The relevant part