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.

6 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 166clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi632Mumbai356Karnataka255Bangalore175Chennai91Jaipur78Kolkata65Cochin64Chandigarh56Hyderabad53Ahmedabad48Indore27Pune25Rajkot23Lucknow21Raipur20Calcutta16Telangana10Surat10Nagpur9Visakhapatnam6Rajasthan6Jabalpur5SC5Agra4Varanasi4Cuttack3Orissa2Amritsar2Jodhpur1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 1328Section 14A4Section 1474Section 1484Section 133A4Addition to Income4Search & Seizure4Survey u/s 133A4Section 143(3)

OCEAN INDIA PVT. LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/VIZ/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blei.T. (T.P.) A. No. 150/Viz/2016 (Asst. Year : 2011-12) M/S. Teejay India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Acit, Circle-5(1), (Formerly Known As Ocean Visakhapatnam. India Pvt. Ltd.), Plot No. 15, Brandix India Apparel City Pvt. Ltd. Sez, Pudimadaka Road, Atchutapuram, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaaco 9452 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajith Tolani/For Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

166/- and excess paid in purchases to the extent of Rs.14,91,84,370/-. Though the assessee has objected the proposed adjustments before the DRP, it could not succeed, hence, the assessee has approached the Tribunal. 20 IT(TP)A No. 150/VIZ/2016 (Teejay India Pvt. Ltd.) 8.2. The AO has rejected the transfer pricing document, the analysis made

2

GVK POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,KADIYAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 553/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.553/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15) M/S Gvk Power & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.5-48, Gvk Power Plant Income Tax Jegurupadu, Kadiyammandal Circle-2(1) East Godavari Rajamahendravaram [Pan :Aaacj5599A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओ रसे/ Appellant By Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 5

166 : (2002) 254ITR 377 (Del) that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably can put itself in the armchair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the route

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD, GUNTUR

ITA 229/VIZ/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Sept 2025
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148

166/- made addition of Rs.21,60,86,928/-.\n9. Further, Ld. AO also made addition on unaccounted excess sales found in\nERP data in comparing with return of income amounting to Rs.93,943/-. Ld. AO\nalso did not accept the contention of the assessee regarding the bogus purchases\nin comparing to the ERP data base and thereby disallowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD., GUNTUR

ITA 231/VIZ/2025[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Sept 2025
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148

166/- made addition of Rs.21,60,86,928/-.\n9. Further, Ld. AO also made addition on unaccounted excess sales found in\nERP data in comparing with return of income amounting to Rs.93,943/-. Ld. AO\nalso did not accept the contention of the assessee regarding the bogus purchases\nin comparing to the ERP data base and thereby disallowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD., GUNTUR

ITA 230/VIZ/2025[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Sept 2025
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148

166/- made addition of Rs.21,60,86,928/-.\n9.\nFurther, Ld. AO also made addition on unaccounted excess sales found in\nERP data in comparing with return of income amounting to Rs.93,943/-. Ld. AO\nalso did not accept the contention of the assessee regarding the bogus purchases\nin comparing to the ERP data base and thereby disallowed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT LTD, GUNTUR

ITA 228/VIZ/2025[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Sept 2025
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148

166/- made addition of Rs.21,60,86,928/-.\n9.\nFurther, Ld. AO also made addition on unaccounted excess sales found in\nERP data in comparing with return of income amounting to Rs.93,943/-. Ld. AO\nalso did not accept the contention of the assessee regarding the bogus purchases\nin comparing to the ERP data base and thereby disallowed