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.

2 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 194Hclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai151Delhi111Kolkata42Bangalore29Chennai27Ahmedabad15Hyderabad6Jaipur5Indore5Chandigarh4Cuttack2Visakhapatnam2Pune2Rajkot2Guwahati2SC1Surat1Kerala1Jodhpur1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 143(2)7Section 194H6Section 405Section 143(3)2Disallowance2Addition to Income2

M/S. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT.LTD,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 335/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 263Section 40

Section 194H of the Act, from them; the incentives payable under the trade discount scheme was disbursed by the assessee to the retail dealers through del-credere agents who had opened separate bank accounts for the said purpose; and the del- credere agents had only acted as a conduit for transferring incentives to the retail dealers. 5. Placing reliance

TBR INFRA PVT LTD,ALAMPURAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 260/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

transfer pricing cases, quantum of such addition should\nexceed 10 crore.\n11. Accordingly, in the instant case where the addition amounting to\nRs.3,43,759/- is well below the limit prescribed for the selection of return\nrequiring scrutiny during the F.Y. 2017-18. We therefore find merit in the\nargument of the Ld.AR that the scrutiny assessment proceedings raised