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.

110 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 4clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,497Mumbai5,330Bangalore2,045Chennai1,141Kolkata970Ahmedabad825Karnataka803Hyderabad796Pune788Jaipur482Surat326Chandigarh305Indore287Cochin243Visakhapatnam143Rajkot140SC132Telangana110Lucknow92Nagpur89Cuttack88Calcutta75Raipur72Amritsar55Jodhpur38Agra38Guwahati38Dehradun37A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN17Jabalpur16Ranchi15Rajasthan14Varanasi13Panaji13Kerala13Allahabad12Patna11Orissa9Punjab & Haryana4Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1S.B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1

Key Topics

Section 26063Addition to Income33Section 8032Section 10A27Section 260A27Transfer Pricing21Deduction20Comparables/TP19Section 96

The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) vs. Madhu Enterprises

ITTA/455/2017HC Telangana06 Jul 2017

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

price of goods taxable under Section 10 of the Act; ii) Transaction falling under Section 5(2), Section 6-A and Section 6(2) of the CST Act, 1956, iii) Value of transfer of a business as a whole iv) [ xxx] (iii) This sub-rule is not applicable, if the VAT dealer is making exempt transactions. 22. By comparing

S.l. Shiva Raj vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,

ITTA/134/2016HC Telangana14 Jul 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price of goods taxable under Section 10 of the Act; ii) Transaction falling under Section 5(2), Section 6-A and Section 6(2) of the CST Act, 1956, iii) Value of transfer of a business as a whole iv) [ xxx] (iii) This sub-rule is not applicable, if the VAT dealer is making exempt transactions. 22. By comparing

Showing 1–20 of 110 · Page 1 of 6

11
Section 15110
Survey u/s 133A10
Section 80H9

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s Satyasai Bhavani Hsopitals Private Limited

ITTA/537/2015HC Telangana02 Nov 2015

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 260

Transfer Pricing Officer is binding on the Assessing Authority as per Section 92–CA (4) of the Act, but where

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. New Bombay Goods Transport

ITTA/249/2013HC Telangana11 Jul 2013
Section 4

price of khair wood. 4. It is the petitioner’s case that, since the Corporation issued bills in their favour and provided them a transit pass to transport khair wood from their Chiriyapur Depot in the State of Uttarakhand to the petitioner’s address at Nazibabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh, it was evident that the goods moved from

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

ITTA/318/2008HC Telangana01 Mar 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

For Respondent: Ms. K.Lalitha, Standing Counsel for
Section 10(20)Section 10(29)Section 12ASection 260ASection 4Section 4(1)

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 or any other bank being a bank included in Second Schedule to Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the like. The breach of Section 11(5) would attract Section 13(1)(d) of the IT Act and the benefit under Sections 11 and 12 would not be available if funds are deposited or invested

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

ITTA/251/2008HC Telangana01 Mar 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

For Respondent: Ms. K.Lalitha, Standing Counsel for
Section 10(20)Section 10(29)Section 12ASection 260ASection 4Section 4(1)

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 or any other bank being a bank included in Second Schedule to Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the like. The breach of Section 11(5) would attract Section 13(1)(d) of the IT Act and the benefit under Sections 11 and 12 would not be available if funds are deposited or invested

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/273/2012HC Telangana18 Feb 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 260A

Section 80IA(8) requiring adoption of market value of goods in place of the actual - - 15 sale price in the cases of certain specified sales, and the transfer pricing rules, it held the Assessing Authority does not have the power to substitute the value for the actual sale price in the absence of any evidence of understatement of the value

M.Y.Maharshi vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, we do not find

ITTA/282/2013HC Telangana16 Jul 2013
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer has not examined the controversy in detail in the earlier years and the determination of arms length price is independent in each of the assessment year and recorded a perverse finding? (3) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in not appreciating the fact that loans or external commercial borrowings between the cross border entities resulting 4

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITTA/285/2017HC Telangana08 Oct 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 260Section 80JSection 92C

4. The Assessing Officer thereafter referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer, who by an order dated 30.01.2014 inter alia computed the transfer pricing adjustment at Rs.20,20,07,861/- under Section

M/S VAIBHAV vs. JOINT COMM. OF INCOME TAX RANGE 3 HYD

Appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the

ITTA/58/2002HC Telangana14 Sept 2022

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) Was Allowed & The Judgment & Decree Dated 12.12.2000, Passed By Learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu Was Set-Aside. (Parties Shall Hereinafter Be Referred To In

For Appellant: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate with

4 SCC 193 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 101: 2009 SCC OnLine SC 395, wherein it was observed at page 196: “16. Sale is defined as being a transfer of ownership for a price. In a sale, there is an absolute transfer of all rights in the properties sold. No rights are left in the transferor. The price is fixed

M/S.R.S.RANGADAS vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITTA/406/2005HC Telangana19 Oct 2022

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 2(47)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(1)Section 48Section 54F

4 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1930 to hold that sale would take place on transfer of title in the goods from the seller to the buyer, and where transfer of property in the goods would take place at a future time or was subject to some condition to be fulfilled, the contract would not be a contract

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

ITTA/422/2017HC Telangana10 Jul 2017

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

Section 39(1)Section 5Section 65(1)Section 9(2)

price as well as the terms and conditions. The aforesaid quotation states that Dell product would be exported from Malaysia. Thus, the petitioner seeks customer's upfront contractual approval of manufacture and supply of required product from Malaysia. On receipt of the quotation, customer accepts either by signing the same or by raising a purchase order or by making

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt. Raj Kumari

Accordingly are partly allowed

ITTA/23/2008HC Telangana28 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4) is in fact taken by administrative action, the character of which is determined by the Minister’s free choice.” It was then held that what was said of the Industrial Tribunal in the Bharat Bank’s case (supra) would in full measure apply to the Labour Court. The appointments of the judges to the Labour Courts must, therefore

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD., HYD

ITTA/335/2017HC Telangana26 Sept 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 13 which provides for Rule making power of the Central Government in respect of minerals. Section 13 subsection (1) WP(C). 11249/2010 & other contd cases. -:88:- and Section 13 Sub-section (2) in so far as relevant in the present case are as follows: “13. Power of Central Government to make Rules in respect of minerals.-- (1) The Central

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

ITTA/195/2008HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price  lower than the market rate. If that be so,  the   question   of   inflating   the   loss   by  transferring   the   shares   to   group   company  would   not   arise.   Under   ordinary  circumstances,   it   is   always   open   to   the  assessee in his own wisdom to either hold on  to certain bunch of shares or to sell the  same to avoid further loss

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

ITTA/211/2008HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price  lower than the market rate. If that be so,  the   question   of   inflating   the   loss   by  transferring   the   shares   to   group   company  would   not   arise.   Under   ordinary  circumstances,   it   is   always   open   to   the  assessee in his own wisdom to either hold on  to certain bunch of shares or to sell the  same to avoid further loss

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

ITTA/196/2008HC Telangana02 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price  lower than the market rate. If that be so,  the   question   of   inflating   the   loss   by  transferring   the   shares   to   group   company  would   not   arise.   Under   ordinary  circumstances,   it   is   always   open   to   the  assessee in his own wisdom to either hold on  to certain bunch of shares or to sell the  same to avoid further loss

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

ITTA/94/2008HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 21

price, but instead of getting a deed of conveyance gets a SA/GPA/WILL as a mode of transfer, either at the instance of the vendor or at his own instance. Ill - effects of SA/GPA/WILL transactions: Page 41 of 76 C/LPA/94/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2021 RAVJIBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL SINCE DECD. THR'HEIRS V/s ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY U.L.C. 3. The earlier order

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

ITTA/541/2015HC Telangana16 Feb 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 167BSection 2(31)Section 2(47)Section 260Section 3Section 4Section 67A

Section 110 of the Act, if an AOP is chargeable to tax at maximum marginal rate then the share of profits in the hands of the members is not chargeable to tax at all. 19. Now against the above contours of taxability of an AOP, we have to see the facts of the case before us. The first

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. Sri Prem Chand

ITTA/380/2006HC Telangana02 Feb 2012
Section 4

price may not amount to manufacture, as even after the processing, the commodity commercially known for marketing remains the same viz. milk and the subject of tax has also been identified as one commodity viz.'milk' for tax also which is one of the relevant factor for determination whether a commercially distinct commodity will come into market by the dint