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.

2,521 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 153Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi625Mumbai593Jaipur189Bangalore189Hyderabad181Chennai161Cochin117Ahmedabad78Indore70Chandigarh66Rajkot36Pune36Kolkata23Surat19Agra19Guwahati18Visakhapatnam14Nagpur14Jodhpur13Amritsar11Karnataka7Lucknow7Raipur7Cuttack7Kerala5Patna5Dehradun4SC2Rajasthan1Ranchi1Jabalpur1Allahabad1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 153A118Section 143(3)75Addition to Income73Section 13241Section 153C37Search & Seizure25Disallowance25Section 10(38)22Section 139(1)18Section 250

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Showing 1–20 of 2,521 · Page 1 of 127

...
17
Long Term Capital Gains16
Section 143(2)15
ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

KAMAL KANT VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 53/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 6th September, 2016, which was duly served. Upon receipt of notice

M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 45/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 6th September, 2016, which was duly served. Upon receipt of notice

SACHIN VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 59/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 6th September, 2016, which was duly served. Upon receipt of notice

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 270A

transferred that revised return to the 20 Ajay Bakliwal vs. ACIT JAO on 26.11.2019. Vide letter dated 13.12.2019 assessee informed to JAO by filling a letter along with revised return and note explaining the reasons for filling that. Ld. AO has passed the assessment order on 28.12.2019 where in he has not discussed the filling of revised return

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 1020/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/
Section 132(1)Section 153C

price, whichever is less. It is further submitted cost or market price, whichever is less. It is further submitted cost or market price, whichever is less. It is further submitted that there will be no change in profit/real taxable income, that there will be no change in profit/real taxable income, that there will be no change in profit/real taxable income

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 1970/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/
Section 132(1)Section 153C

price, whichever is less. It is further submitted cost or market price, whichever is less. It is further submitted cost or market price, whichever is less. It is further submitted that there will be no change in profit/real taxable income, that there will be no change in profit/real taxable income, that there will be no change in profit/real taxable income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 86/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

section 153A of the Act. Thus the said judgment is inapplicable under the facts of the present case. Another judgment cited by ld. D/R is in the case of Harshvardhan Johari vs. DCIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com 449 (Jaipur-Trib) wherein it was held that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was not issued though the time

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. PARKASH INDUSTRIES LTD, HISAR

ITA 4040/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 68

transferred to the directors and their family members at much lower price. “24. in the present case, since no incriminating material was found, therefore, the addition made by the ao u/s 153a of the act was not justified. 26. a similar view has been taken by the hon'ble jurisdictiona l high court in the case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD., HISAR

ITA 4043/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 68

transferred to the directors and their family members at much lower price. “24. in the present case, since no incriminating material was found, therefore, the addition made by the ao u/s 153a of the act was not justified. 26. a similar view has been taken by the hon'ble jurisdictiona l high court in the case

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 30,, NEW DELHI

ITA 4067/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 68

transferred to the directors and their family members at much lower price. “24. in the present case, since no incriminating material was found, therefore, the addition made by the ao u/s 153a of the act was not justified. 26. a similar view has been taken by the hon'ble jurisdictiona l high court in the case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD., HISAR

ITA 4039/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 68

transferred to the directors and their family members at much lower price. “24. in the present case, since no incriminating material was found, therefore, the addition made by the ao u/s 153a of the act was not justified. 26. a similar view has been taken by the hon'ble jurisdictiona l high court in the case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. PARKASH INDUSTRIES LTD, HISAR

ITA 4041/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 68

transferred to the directors and their family members at much lower price. “24. in the present case, since no incriminating material was found, therefore, the addition made by the ao u/s 153a of the act was not justified. 26. a similar view has been taken by the hon'ble jurisdictiona l high court in the case

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

ITA 4064/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 68

transferred to the directors and their family members at much lower price. “24. in the present case, since no incriminating material was found, therefore, the addition made by the ao u/s 153a of the act was not justified. 26. a similar view has been taken by the hon'ble jurisdictiona l high court in the case

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 30,, NEW DELHI

ITA 4068/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 68

transferred to the directors and their family members at much lower price. “24. in the present case, since no incriminating material was found, therefore, the addition made by the ao u/s 153a of the act was not justified. 26. a similar view has been taken by the hon'ble jurisdictiona l high court in the case

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 30,, NEW DELHI

ITA 4070/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 68

transferred to the directors and their family members at much lower price. “24. in the present case, since no incriminating material was found, therefore, the addition made by the ao u/s 153a of the act was not justified. 26. a similar view has been taken by the hon'ble jurisdictiona l high court in the case

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 30,, NEW DELHI

ITA 4066/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 68

transferred to the directors and their family members at much lower price. “24. in the present case, since no incriminating material was found, therefore, the addition made by the ao u/s 153a of the act was not justified. 26. a similar view has been taken by the hon'ble jurisdictiona l high court in the case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. PARKASH INDUSTRIES LTD, HISAR

ITA 4042/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 68

transferred to the directors and their family members at much lower price. “24. in the present case, since no incriminating material was found, therefore, the addition made by the ao u/s 153a of the act was not justified. 26. a similar view has been taken by the hon'ble jurisdictiona l high court in the case