← All Phrases

“Section 92(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 92Section 92(1)197 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 92(1) is Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT (321 ITR 92), cited in 194 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 92(1)

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT
321 ITR 92 · 2010 · High Court
194
citing judgments

This case clarifies the scope of the Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, holding that an assessment order can only be revised if it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, echoing the principles laid down in Malabar Industrial.

Autodesk India Pvt.Ltd. v. DCIT
96 Taxmann.com 263 · 2018 · ITAT
116
citing judgments

A high turnover criterion, such as above Rs. 200 crores, is a valid ground to exclude companies from the list of comparable companies in a transfer pricing analysis, as such companies are not comparable to those with significantly lower turnover.

Maruti Udyog v. DCIT
92 ITD 119 · 2005 · ITAT
87
citing judgments

The onus is on the revenue to establish the nexus between expenses incurred and exempt income before making a disallowance under section 14A.

ACIT v. Marvel Associates
92 Taxmann.com 109 · 2018 · ITAT
80
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271AAB cannot be levied mechanically; the Assessing Officer must apply an independent mind, grant a hearing, and record satisfaction that the income genuinely falls within the statutory definition, which requires discovery of an unrecorded asset or income entry during search.

Adobe Systems Inc. v. ADIT
203 Taxmann 554 · 2011 · High Court
59
citing judgments

A fixed place of business constitutes a Permanent Establishment (PE) under Article 5(1) of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement only if the premises are actually at the disposal of the foreign enterprise, thereby satisfying the crucial 'disposal test', and it is through this fixed place that the foreign enterprise carries on its business, wholly or partly.

CIT v. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre (P.) Ltd.
344 ITR 476 · 2012 · High Court
58
citing judgments

Payment of commission to doctors for referring patients to diagnostic centers or providing gifts, freebies, or hospitality to medical practitioners by pharmaceutical companies is against public policy and cannot be allowed as a business expenditure under Section 37(1). Demanding such benefits is unethical on the part of doctors, and paying them is equally unethical on the part of companies.

Dell International Services India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
89 Taxmann.com 44 · 2018 · ITAT
54
citing judgments

High turnover serves as a valid criterion for excluding a company from the list of comparable companies when determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in transfer pricing adjustments.

CIT v. Mithilesh Kumari
92 ITR 9 · 1973 · High Court
54
citing judgments

Interest on borrowed capital used to acquire an asset, paid year after year until the date of sale, must be capitalized and included in the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains.

Judgments citing Section 92(1)

Ness Technologies (India) P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. The Addl/Jt/Asstt, /ITO, Nationa E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1084/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1084/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) Ness Digital Engineering बिधम/ The (India) Pvt. Ltd. Addl/Jt./Dy./Acit/Ito, Vs. (Formerly Known As Ness National E-Assessment Technologies (India) Pvt. Centre, Delhi. Ltd. Unit No. 201, 2Nd Office Floor, Building No. 5 & 6, Mindspace Sez, Thane Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai-400708. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca9649L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Devendra Jain Revenue By: Shri Samual Pitta (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order By The Assessing Officer (Ao)/(National E- Assessment Central. Delhi) Dated 19.04.2021 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Sole Issue (Even Though The Assessee Has Raised Ground Nos. 1 To 8) Is Against The Action Of The Ao/Drp In Confirming The Transfer Pricing Adjustment (Tpa) Of Rs.73,69,403/- In Relation To International Transactions Of Reimbursement Of Expenses Received By The Assessee Company From Its Associate Enterprises (Ae).

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Samual Pitta (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 92C

infer a non-existent understanding between assessee and its associated enterprises so as to impute income qua the instant transaction in terms of section 92(1) of the Act. Another pertinent fact which has not been rebutted by the Revenue before us is to the effect that in similar situation ... income arising from an international transaction is liable to be computed, having regard to the arm’s length price as mandated in section 92(1) of the Act. Section 92C prescribes the manner of determination of the arm’s length price and sub-section (1) thereof specifically lays down various

Galax E Solutions India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 389/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.389/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Galax E Solutions India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Unit No.4, 8Th Floor, Innovator Block, Itpl, Circle -3(1)(1), Bangalore, Whitefield Road, Bangalore 560 066. Pan : Aabcg 9007 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. C. J. Brito, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit, Dr. Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.5.2021 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2016-2017. 2. The First Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is With Regard To The Correctness Of Determination Of Arm’S Length Price In Respect Of An International Transaction U/S.92 Of The Act. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To It’S Wholly Owned Subsidiary Company In Usa. In Terms Of The Provisions

For Appellant: Shri. C. J. Brito, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. S. PADMAVATHY, ACCOUNTANT