“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Manoj Kumar Jaju, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 36(1), Kolkakta, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1207/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 91(2)Section 91(3)Section 92(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय

Ajit Kumar, Narkatiaganj vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Bettiah

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 222/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 91(2)Section 91(3)Section 92(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण पटना पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH AT KOLKATA [वर्चुअल कोटु] [Virtual

Success Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as

ITA 1742/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 147Section 250Section 91(2)Section 91(3)Section 92(2)

sirrepz aicitchker sif2rasz01 Waid wave ule, wicrapral di IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA of tore

Dy.Commissioner, Mumbai vs. Lalit Tarachand Thakkar, Mulund West, Mumbai

ITA 1210/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Dr. K. R. SubhashFor Respondent: Shri Siddharth Srivashtava

Section 92(2)

that the disputed taxes were paid and Ld. PCIT, Mumbai had issued an order for full and final settlement of tax arrears under section 92(2) r.w.s. 93 of Finance Act (No. 2) Act 2024. 3. Hence, the appellant’s cross objection is dismissed and appeal of the Department becomes

M/S. Annapurna Properties, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 31, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1083/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Annapurna Properties, Dcit, Circle-31, Kolkata, C/O M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia Form No. 10B, Middleton & Co., Road, Vs 7, C.R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor Kolkata – 700016, Kolkata – 700072, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefa5641D Present For: Appellant By : Shri Siddarth , Fca Respondent By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra:

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth , FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 91Section 91(3)Section 92(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

Raj Kumar Agarwal HUF, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 37, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1149/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14 Raj Kumar Agarwal Huf Asst. Cit, Circle 37, Kolkata, 15, Ganagdhar Babu 3, Govt. Place, Lane, Kolkata – 700001, Vs Eden House, Bow Bazar, West Bengal Kolkata – 700012, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aahhr3501E Present For: Appellant By : Shri S. S. Gupta, Fca Respondent By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2025 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra:

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 91Section 91(3)Section 92(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

Ala Chemicals P. Ltd., Palghar vs. Dy CIT-5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 7950/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 3Section 92B

where the aggregate of such transactions entered into by the assessee in the previous year exceeds a sum of twenty crore rupees. Section 92(2), as amended provided that where in an international transaction or specified domestic transaction, two or more associated enterprises enter into a mutual agreement or arrangement

Edelweiss Commodities Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 7475/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

United Breweries Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2569/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92B(1)

where the aggregate of such transactions entered into by the assessee in the previous year exceeds a sum of twenty crore rupees.” 28. Section 92(2), as amended provided that where in an international transaction or specified domestic transaction, two or more associated enterprises enter into a mutual agreement

Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 7116/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd. Income Tax, 10(1)(1), Chakala, Andheri (E), R.No.209, Vs. Mumbai-400 009 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach0964P

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92(2)Section 92BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM The

Givaundan(India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Ltu Cr 1, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 229/BANG/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 229/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Givaudan (India) The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No. 26, 2Nd Cross, Income Tax, Jigani Industrial Area, Ltu, Bangalore – 562 106. Circle – 1, Vs. Pan: Aaacv7454J Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumeet Khurana, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit- Revenue By I Date Of Hearing : 11-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaiit Is Submitted That The Main Appeal Was Heard By This Tribunal & Order Was Passed On 02/08/2019. However Grounds 6 & 7 Were Not Adjudicated Independently For Assessment Year 2010- 11. The Assessee Preferred Mp No.15/Bang/2020 Requesting For Adjudication Of These Grounds. 2. Accordingly The Present Appeal Is Fixed For Hearing For Adjudication Of Following Grounds: “6. That The Learned Ao & The Learned Panel Erred Both In Facts & Law In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Tpo Of Making An Adjustment To The Transfer Price Of The Appellant In Respect Of The Payment Of Royalty By Rs.27,67,42,242, Holding That The International Transaction

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CA

trade mark. The transaction has to been remanded to the Ld.AO/TPO for determining the ALP by following the procedure envisaged under section 92(2) of the Act. We place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of Deloit Consulting India (P.) Ltd vs DCIT reported

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1310/BANG/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1309 & 1310/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Innovator, No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Post, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1309/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R

Neogenetics Foods Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 361/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.361/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Neogenetics Foods Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Level 14 & 15, Concorde Towers, Ub City, 1 Circle - 3(1)(1), Vittal Malya Road, Ub City, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aadcn 7689 L Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C