← All Phrases

“Section 92(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 92Section 92(3)47 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 92(3) is Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT (321 ITR 92), cited in 194 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 92(3)

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.

Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
368 ITR 1 · 2014 · High Court
172
citing judgments

The issue of shares and share premium is a capital account transaction, not an income-generating event, therefore Chapter X (Transfer Pricing) provisions are not attracted to deem notional or hypothetical income from such transactions.

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.

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(3)

ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Adani Enterprises Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect

ITA 264/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.264/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Acit Adani Enterprises Ltd. बनाम/ Circle-1 (1)(1) Adani Corporate House V/S. Ahmedabad Shantigram Near Vaishno Devi Circle S.G. Highway Khodiyar Ahmedabad- 382 421 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 2804 L अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 250Section 37Section 92(3)

justified in deleting the adjustment/addition of Rs. 1,12,17.629/- on account of the purchase of coal by violating provisions of section 92(3) of the Act. 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified ... benefit of transactions where assessee has imported coal at a price lower than the market value which is contrary io the provisions of section 92(3) of the Income Tax Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Sitapuram Power Limited-Erstwhile Amalgamating Company (Now Amalgamated Company-Zuari Cement Limited), Kadapa vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआआआआ आआआआ आआ./ I.T.A. (Tp) No.79/Hyd/2022 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Erstwhile Amalgamating Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of – Sitapuram Power Limited Income Tax, Pan:Aajcs2098E Circle-1, (Now Amalgamated Company – Nellore. Zuari Cement Limited), Kadapa. Pan:Aajcs2098E (आआआआआआआआआ/ Appellant) (आआआआआआआआआआ/ Respondent) आआआआआआआआआ आआ आआ आआ/ Appellant : Adv. Shri Deepak Chopra & Nitin Narang By आआआआआआआआआआआ आआ आआ आआ / : Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr Respondent By आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ / Date Of : 15/05/2024 Hearing आआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of : 02/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Adv. Shri Deepak Chopra &
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 80ISection 92Section 92(3)Section 92BSection 92D

section 80IA(10) of the Act. 6.1. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above ground, in contravention to the conditions laid down in section 92(3) of the Act that governs the applicability of Indian TP regulations, the Ld.AO / TPO / Hon’ble DRP has erred

Technimont Spa India Project Office, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2152/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2152/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) M/S. Tecnimont Spa India बिधम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Office Income Tax- 4(1)(2) Vs. Tecnimont Icb House, Room No. 1712 17Th Chincholi Bunder, 504 Link Floor, Air India Building Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400064. 400021 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact8224A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. M.P. Lohia A/W Pranay Gandhi Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ao Dated Nil Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(1) 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 Only Issue Is Regarding The Transfer Pricing Adjustment Made By The Ao Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Direction Dated 23.12.2016. According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee/Tipo Is A Project Office/Pe Of M/S. Tecnimont Spa (Tcm), A Foreign Company Incorporated At Milan, Italy Which Is Engaged In Engineering & Construction World-Wide In Section Of Chemical, Petro-Chemical Oil & Gas, Energy Etc; According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee/Tipo Has Been Awarded Inter-Alia Turnkey Project By M/S. Indian Oil Corporation (Hereinafter “M/S. Iocl”) At Panipat Project. & The Assessee/Tipo

For Appellant: Shri. M.P. Lohia a/w PranayFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

adjustment can be made on the other related corresponding transaction of the AE without appreciating that this stand is against the provisions of Section 92(3) of the Act?” 9. And the Hon’ble High Court noted the Tribunal decision as under: - 9 A.Y. 2012-13 Technimont SPA India

Technimont Spa India Project Office, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 691/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.691/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) M/S. Tecnimont Spa India बिधम/ Additional Director Of Office Income Tax-(It)-Range-2 Vs. Tecnimont Icb House, 1St Floor, R. No. 108, Chincholi Bunder, 504 Link Scindia House, Ballard Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- Estate, N. M. Road, 400064. Mumbai-400038. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact8224A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M. P. Lohia/ Shri Pranav Gandhi Revenue By: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter “Ao”) Dated 30.11.2012 Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(1) 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 Only Issue Is Regarding The Transfer Pricing Adjustment Made By The Ao Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Direction. According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Is A Foreign Company Incorporated At Milan, Italy & It Has A Project Office In India Which Is The Permanent Establishment (Pe). According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Has Been Awarded A Project By M/S. Indian Oil Corporation (Hereinafter “M/S. Iocl”) At Panipat Project. The Assessee In Turn Has Awarded The Same Project To Two (2) Of Its Associated Enterprises/Ae’S

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Lohia/ Shri PranavFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92B

adjustment can be made on the other related corresponding transaction of the AE without appreciating that this stand is against the provisions of Section 92(3) of the Act?” 12. And the Hon’ble High Court noted the Tribunal decision as under: - “3.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions