← All Phrases

“Section 92(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 92Section 92(2)34 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 92(2) is Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (368 ITR 1), cited in 172 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 92(2)

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.

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.

Sysarris Software Pvt.Ltd. v. DCIT
67 Taxmann.com 243 · 2016 · ITAT
52
citing judgments

High turnover is a valid ground to exclude a company from the list of comparable companies for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in transfer pricing analysis, especially when conflicting judicial views exist on the matter, adopting the view favorable to the assessee.

92 ITD 366 (Bang.) (v) Wipro Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer
272 ITR 99 · 2005 · Reported
32
citing judgments

The 'make available' clause in a copyright licence agreement may not result in royalty income being deemed to accrue or arise in India if the copyright is used outside India. This is subject to the applicability of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. v. DCIT
83 TTJ 427 · 2004 · ITAT
29
citing judgments

The ITAT decision in Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. v. DCIT is authority for the proposition that no interference is called for in an impugned order when no contrary decision has been placed on record.

460 (P & H) (PB-I: Pg 92-93). 8) CIT v. Atul Engineering Udyog
51 Taxmann.com 569 · 2014 · High Court
18
citing judgments

Trade advances in the nature of commercial transactions are not considered 'advances' under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Judgments citing Section 92(2)

Alfanar Energy Private Limited, Gurugram, Haryana, India vs. The Deputy Or Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurugram, Haryana, India

The appeal is allowed partly with consequences to follow as per the directions given to AO/TPO above

ITA 4439/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Alfanar Energy Private Limited, Vs Dcit, 16Th Floor, Building No.5, Circle-1(1), Block-C, Dlf Cyber City, Gurugram. Phase Iii, Gurugram, Haryana – 122 002. Pan: Aapca2671M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate; Ms Reema Grewal, Ca; & Ms Snigdha Gautam, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Of The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurugram (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Ld. Ao’) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. The Assessee Is Part Of The Multinational Group, Arabian Trading Group Which Is Based Out Of Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia & Is Engaged In Generating, Developing, Accumulating, Distributing & Supplying Electricity By Setting Renewable Energy Power Plants. This Is The First Year Of The Assessment Of The Assessee. During The Year, The Assessee Has Undertaken The Following International Transactions:- International Transactions Transfer Pricing Method Total Value Of International Transactions (In Inr) Issue Of Compulsorily Other Method 2,44,77,26,400 Convertible Debentures (Ccds) Interest On Ccds Comparable Uncontrolled 46,52,90,098 Price (Cup) Method Issue Of Equity Shares Other Method 45,04,31,700

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

adjustment of Rs. 46.52,90,098-has been proposed to the income of the Assessee. 8. The DRP then considered the Sub-section 92(2) of the Act, which provides that under an arrangement for facility of funding have to be such that “the cost or expense allocated or apportioned

Kartheesan, Chennai vs. Non Corp Circle 8(1) Che, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1751/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1751/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kartheesan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1/128, Trunk Road, Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Ayyappanthangal, Chennai 600 056. Chennai. [Pan:Ajepk0127F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.P. Venkateshwara Perumal, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 110 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Venkateshwara PerumalFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 92(2)

above assessment year under consideration. He also placed on record copy of order giving effect to the VSVS order under section 92(2) r.w.s. 93 of DTVSVS, 2024 dated 03.07.2025 and submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee may be treated as withdrawn. 4. The ld. DR Ms. Gouthami ... towards settlement of pending tax dispute. We further note that the Assessing Officer passed order giving effect to the VSVS order under section 92(2) r.w.s. 93 of DTVSVS, 2024 dated 03.07.2025 and thus 3 I.T.A. No.1751/Chny/25 settlement of pending tax dispute attained finality. In view of the above facts