Amiantit International Holdings Ltd., In Re(2010)(322 ITR 678)(AAR) (iii) PNB Finance Ltd. v. CIT (

321 ITR 178Reported decision2010#9906 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 35(1)(i)Section 92B

Issues it is cited on

section 92(1)section 92btransfer pricing adjustmentarm's length priceassociated enterprisessection 92international transactionassociated enterprisetransfersection 143(2)opportunity of being heardperson

Judgments citing Amiantit International Holdings Ltd., In Re(2010)(322 ITR 678)(AAR) (iii) PNB Finance Ltd. v. CIT (

TATA CUMMINS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1-JAMSHEDPUR AND THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 430/RAN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaytata Cummins Private Limited, D.C.I.T., Cummins India Office, Tower-A, 7Th Circle-1, Vs. Floor, Survey No. 21, Balewadi, Pune, Jamshedpur. Maharashtra. Pan No. Aaact 6353 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Tata Cummins Private Limited, D.C.I.T., Cummins India Office, Tower-A, 7th Circle-1, Vs. Floor, survey No. 21, Balewadi, Pune, Jamshedpur. Maharashtra. PAN No. AAACT 6353 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Sri Ketan Ved, A.R. Department represented by Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT-DR Date of hearing 12/06/2025 Date of pronouncement 12/06/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Tra…

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1218/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…(A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Thomas Cook (India) Limited  In support of above contention, the assessee wishes to place reliance on the rulings of Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of Dana Corporation Vs. Director of Income-tax A.A.R. No.788 of 2008 (2010 321 ITR 178) wherein it was held that notional figures or hypothetical figures cannot be used for calculation profit or gain or full value for consideration. "The profit or gain or the full value of the consideration, cannot be arrived at onnotional or hypothetical basis. The profit or gain to the transferor must be adistinctly and clearly identifiable compo…

TATA NYK SHIPPING PTE. LTD. ,SINGAPORE vs. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1067/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., International Taxation-3, 6, Shenton Way, #18-08B, New Delhi Oue Downtown 2, Singapore Pan :Aadct9945P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 263Section 92C

…om taxation are not required to be reported in form 3CEB. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions: 1. Goodyear, 334 ITR 69 (AAR), affirmed by the Delhi HighCourt in 360 ITR 159 2. Vanenburg Group, 289 ITR 464 )AAR) 3. Dana Corp, 321 ITR 178 (AAR) 4. Dow Agro, 380 ITR 6668 (AAR) 16. We have patiently and carefully considered the rival submissions made, both orally and in writing by the parties. We have also applied our mind to the judicial precedents cited before us. In the present appeal, we have been called upon to examine the issue as to whether learned CIT was justified in hol…

VODAFONE IDEA LTD (ERSTWHILE ADITYA BIRLA TELECOM LTD),MUMBAI vs. PCIT-CIRCLE 5, MUMBAI

ITA 662/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blevodafone Idea Limited V. Pcit – Circle 5 {Erstwhile Known As Aditya Birla Telecom Limited} Room No. 515, 5Thfloor Birla Centurion, 10Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Plot No. 794, B Wing Mumbai - 400020 Pandurang Budhkar Marg Worli, Mumbai – 400030 Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By Shri J. D. Mistry : Shri Madhur Aggarwal & Shri Ninad Patade Department Represented By : Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 263

…74 IT 609 (Bom HC), 3. Oudh Sugar Mills Limited vs. ITO (1990) 35 ITD 76 (Mum, ITAT), 4. Credit Suisse (International) Holding AG, In re 24 taxmann.com 224 (AAR- New Delhi) 5. Hoechst GmbH, In re (2007) 289 ITR 312 (AAR- New Delhi); 6. Dana Corporation (2010) 321 ITR 178 (AR-New Delhi), 7. Banca SellaSpA, In re (2016] 387 ITR 358 (AAR New Delhi) MENT B.2.4 Erroneous reference to accounting entry in the Notice 5.1.10. Additionally, the notice alleges that the assessee company has shown the above amount of Rs.1380 crores as Other Comprehensive Income but has not related the same in its profit and loss account, aris…

DY CTI, CC-16(1), ,MUMBAI vs. SHIPA SHETTY , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 478/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
Section 92A(2)(j)Section 92B

…hargeable under the Act. Accordingly, since no income had 8 Shilpa Shetty accrued to or received by the Assessee u/s. 5, no notional income can be brought to tax u/s. 92. In this regard, Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments:- i. Dana Corporation [2010] 321 ITR 178 (AAR) - Pg. 192 & 193 ii. Amiantit International Holding Ltd [2010] 322 ITR 678 (AAR) - Pg. 682, 683 and 692 iii. Praxair Pacific Ltd [2010] 326 ITR 276 (AAR) - Pg. 279 and 286 iv. Deere & Co [2011] 337 ITR 277 (AAR) - Pg. 280 & 284 v. Venenburg Group B.V [2007] 289 ITR 464 (AAR) - Para 15 at Pg. 472 vi. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. [2011] 334 ITR…

SHILPA SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 13, MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 5433/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Singh-Ld. DR
Section 14ASection 92ASection 92CSection 92F

…s otherwise not chargeable under the Act. Accordingly, since no income had accrued to or received by the Assessee u/s. 5, no notional income can be brought to tax u/s. 92. In this regard, Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments:- i. Dana Corporation [2010] 321 ITR 178 (AAR) - Pg. 192 & 193 ii. Amiantit International Holding Ltd [2010] 322 ITR 678 (AAR) - Pg. 682, 683 and 692 26 I.T.A. No. 2445/Mum/2014 Shilpa Shetty iii. Praxair Pacific Ltd [2010] 326 ITR 276 (AAR) - Pg. 279 and 286 iv. Deere & Co [2011] 337 ITR 277 (AAR) - Pg. 280 & 284 v. Venenburg Group B.V [2007] 289 ITR 464 (AAR) - Para 15 at Pg. 472 vi.…

SHILPA SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 13, MUMBAI

ITA 2445/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2445/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind V. SondeFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan
Section 92ASection 92A(2)(j)Section 92CSection 92F

…otherwise not chargeable under the Act. Accordingly, since no income had accrued to or received by the Assessee u/s. 5, no notional income can be brought to tax u/s. 92. In this regard, Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments:- i. Dana Corporation [2010] 321 ITR 178 (AAR) - Pg. 192 & 193 ii. Amiantit International Holding Ltd [2010] 322 ITR 678 (AAR) - Pg. 682, 683 and 692 26 I.T.A. No. 2445/Mum/2014 Shilpa Shetty iii. Praxair Pacific Ltd [2010] 326 ITR 276 (AAR) - Pg. 279 and 286 iv. Deere & Co [2011] 337 ITR 277 (AAR) - Pg. 280 & 284 v. Venenburg Group B.V [2007] 289 ITR 464 (AAR) - Para 15 at Pg. 472…

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1716/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N K Pradhan, Am The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, Range- Neville House, J.N. Heradia Marg, 2(1)(1), Mumbai Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Room No.561, Aayakar Pan No.Aaact2328K Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020

Section 144C(5)

…ome earned or an expense claimed. In the absence of any income whatsoever, the question of applying TP provision does not arise. In this behalf he placed reliance in the case Dana Corporation in re. Authority For Advance Rulings (Income-Tax), New Delhi (2010) 321 ITR 178 (AAR), wherein it has been held that where there is no consideration, there is no income chargeable u/s 45 of the Act and hence TP provisions cannot be invoked to hold that the assessee must charge a minimum consideration so as to meet ALP norms. The AAR held that section 92 of the Act is not an independent charging section. Furthermore, accordin…

SOLAR TURBINES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1075/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1075/Mum./2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011–12) Solar Turbines India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Turbomach India P. Ltd.), 401, 402, 403, 4Th Floor ……………. Appellant Powai Plaza, Hiranandani Business Park Powai, Mumbai 400 076 Pan – Aabct7422R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle–15(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde A/W Shri Ketan Ved रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुिवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 05.10.2016 Date Of Order – 02.01.2017 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde a/wFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…section 92 is not a charging section but a machinery provision. If income does not arise, Chapter–10 will not apply. In this context, he relied upon the following decisions:– Vanenburg Group B. V. In re [2007] 289 ITR 464 AAR; 1. 2. Dana Corporation (2009) (321 ITR 178) (AAR); M.JafferSaheb (Decd.) v/s CIT, (2014) 361 ITR 25 (AP); 3. 4. Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI [2014] 368 ITR 1 (Bom). 9. He submitted, real income means when the income arise or accrues. He submitted, there being no international transaction in terms of section 92B of the Act, hence, there is no question of determining arm's leng…

ADITYA BIRLA TELECOM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMM OF INCOME TAX 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 341/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Kumar, Sp. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 391Section 394Section 45Section 47

…oney's worth or nothing capable of being turned into money will accrue or arise to the applicant on the date of transfer. Therefore, the contention of the revenue has to be rejected. [Para 7] 9. The authority of Advance Ruling in the case of Dana Corporation, 321 ITR 178, has also held that the profit or gain or the full value of the consideration, cannot be arrived at on notional or hypothetical basis. The profit or gain to the transferor must be a distinctly and clearly identifiable component of the transaction. The consideration for the transfer of shares in terms of money or money‟s worth is not something whi…

TOPSGRUP ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2115/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amit Shuklam/S. Topsgrup Electronic Systems Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3) Ltd. (Previsously Tops Sequipment Ltd.) Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 5, Royal Palms Golf & Country Club Vs. Mumbai 400020 Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400065 Pan - Aaact3291K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.M. LalaFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Shah
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…Act, TP provisions were not applicable. The relevant portions of the Tribunal’s order, brought to the notice of the Bench, at paras 8 to 10 thereof is extracted hereunder: - “8. The learned counsel relied upon the decision in the case of Dana Corporation RE, 321 ITR 178 (AAR) wherein it has been held as follows: “Section 92 is not an independent charging provision. The expression ‘income arising’ in the opening words of section 92 postulates that income has arisen under the substantive charging provisions of the Act. If by application of the provisions of section 45 read with section 48, which are integrally con…