BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

22 results for “capital gains”+ Section 92A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai45Delhi28Bangalore22Kolkata12Chennai10Pune8Ahmedabad7Hyderabad2Jabalpur1Karnataka1Indore1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 92C34Section 143(3)24Transfer Pricing22Addition to Income12Comparables/TP12Disallowance11Section 928Section 143(2)7Depreciation

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2532/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai for Shri K.R. VasudevanFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 37Section 92C

92A(1) lays down the basic rule that in order to be treated as an "associated enterprise in one IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 United Brewries Ltd., Bangalore Page 15 of 70 enterprise, in relation to another enterprise, means an enterprise which participate, directly or indirectly, or through one or more intermediaries, 'in the management or control or capital

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

7
Section 405
Section 14A4
TP Method4

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)

92A(1) lays down the basic rule that in order to be treated as an "associated enterprise in one enterprise, in relation to another enterprise, means an enterprise which participate, directly or indirectly, or through one or more intermediaries, 'in the management or control or capital of the other enterprise' or when 'one or more persons who participate, directly

M/S. ORIGAMI CELLULO PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR-III)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92C

92A(2) reported in Form 3CEB, the AO should have referred the matter to the TPO so as to ascertain the ALP of specific domestic transactions with related parties. According to him, the AO failed to follow the CBDT Instruction No.3/16 dated 10.3.2016, which expressly provides for determination of ALP of international transactions as well as specific domestic transactions. However

M/S PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2929/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malthora, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)Section 92C

Section 92A(2) of the Act, and such disclosure does not take away the arm's length nature of the arrangement entered into between two third parties. 5. The learned AO, the learned TPO, and the Hon'ble DRP have erroneously concluded that the Appellant had entered into an arrangement with Relay B.V to transfer controlling stake in United Spirits

M/S UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2930/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malthora, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)Section 92C

Section 92A(2) of the Act, and such disclosure does not take away the arm's length nature of the arrangement entered into between two third parties. 5. The learned AO, the learned TPO, and the Hon'ble DRP have erroneously concluded that the Appellant had entered into an arrangement with Relay B.V to transfer controlling stake in United Spirits

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 345/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

92A(1) lays down the basic rule that in order to be treated as an "associated enterprise in one enterprise, in relation to another enterprise, means an enterprise which participate, directly or indirectly, or through one or more intermediaries, 'in the management or control or capital of the other enterprise' or when 'one or more persons who participate, directly

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 308/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

92A(1) lays down the basic rule that in order to be treated as an "associated enterprise in one enterprise, in relation to another enterprise, means an enterprise which participate, directly or indirectly, or through one or more intermediaries, 'in the management or control or capital of the other enterprise' or when 'one or more persons who participate, directly

M/S PAGE INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 163/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha,CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80JSection 92C

92A(1) of the Act are not existing between the assessee-company and JII. In the absence of relationship of assessee-company between two companies, the transaction does not constitute international transaction within the meaning of sec.92B of the Act. It was further contended that in any event, transaction of payment of royalty is at arm’s length

M/S WEVIN PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD-7(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2710/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.2710/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S.Wevin Pvt. Ltd. No.143-E, 1St & 2Nd Phase, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Bengaluru-560099. … Appellant Pan: Aaacw1349M Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 7(1)(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Ca. Respondent By : Shri C.Sundar Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

gains worked out based on ALP adjustment of the TPO where sale of shares was worked out by TPO is Rs.53,20,35,000/- instead of Rs.28,95,934,437/- adopted by the assessee and other additions, assessed income of Rs.32,50,67,000/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) dated 15/12/2016. 7. Aggrieved

M/S. HEWLETT-PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 3, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2575/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 2575/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biju M.K. , CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

92A(2)(a) which provides a limit of 26% of the equity capital carrying voting rights for treating an enterprise as Associated Enterprise. if the limit is reduced further it would only result in eliminating more and more companies, on the other hand if the limit is relaxed then companies with predominantly related party transactions would get included which would

M/S. HIMALAYA WELLNESS COMPANY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY),BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 259/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT -DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 2(11)Section 92C

92A(2) of the IT Act are not present. 8.8 As regards rejection of the TP study done by the Appellant under TNMM and adoption of CPM as the Most Appropriate Method: 8.9 The Hon’ble DRP is not justified in upholding the action of the Ld. TPO in rejecting the Transfer Pricing study carried out by the Appellant under

M/S. CITRIX R & D INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2428/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 92A(2)(a) which provides a limit of 26% of the equity capital carrying voting rights for treating an enterprise as Associated Enterprise. if the limit is reduced further it would only result in eliminating more and more companies, on the other hand if the limit is relaxed then companies with predominantly related party transactions would get included which

M/S YAHOO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2657/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri, Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

gain (Net) 86765355 Operating revenue 8758506796 TOTAL EXPENSES (as per P&L) 7322770620 Less: Provision for doubtful advances 6751270 Less: Provision for loss on fixed assets held for sale 5244587 Less: Donations 7271536 7303503227 Operating Expenses 1455003569 Operating Profit 19.92% OP/OC IT(TP)A Nos.2657/Bang/18 & 2365/Bang/19 Page 3 of 31 4. The assessee chose 7 comparable companies and the arithmetic

M/S. YAHOO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2365/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri, Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

gain (Net) 86765355 Operating revenue 8758506796 TOTAL EXPENSES (as per P&L) 7322770620 Less: Provision for doubtful advances 6751270 Less: Provision for loss on fixed assets held for sale 5244587 Less: Donations 7271536 7303503227 Operating Expenses 1455003569 Operating Profit 19.92% OP/OC IT(TP)A Nos.2657/Bang/18 & 2365/Bang/19 Page 3 of 31 4. The assessee chose 7 comparable companies and the arithmetic

M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTORS (P) LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 40A(2)

Gains of Business or Profession" do not refer to or include the amounts computed under Chapter X and therefore addition made under Chapter X is bad in law; and d. Not appreciating that there being no disallowance under section 40A(2) for royalty payment, adjustment under Chapter X ought not to be made. GROUNDS RELATING TO COMPUTATION

M/S. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed

ITA 1423/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Sept 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P.) A. No.1423/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/S.Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Crystal Downs, Embassy Golf Links, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. Business Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore-560 071 Pan Aaacg 2435N Appellant Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri Ajith Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

gain or loss in computing the operating margin of the Appellant and the comparable companies. 5 IT (T.P) A No.1423/Bang/2010 Goldman Sachs Services Pvt Ltd 10. The Honourable DRP and the learned AO/TPO erred in law and on facts in upholding the arm’s length margin arrived at by the learned TPO by not considering the lower range

M/S. SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2506/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D

capital of the Appellant and the comparable companies. 4.12. Not providing suitable adjustment to account for differences in the risk profile of the Appellant 4.13 Computing incorrect operating mark-up of certain comparable companies: M/s. SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 24 a) Kals Information Systems Ltd.; b) E-Zest Solutions Limited; c) CG-VAK Software & Exports

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 102/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Parbat, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 92ASection 92C

92A of the Act vide order dt.27.6.2008 in which no TP Adjustment to the ALP of the assessee's international transactions was proposed or made. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.31.12.2008, wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs.351,52,97,339 in view of various addition / disallowances made

NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result grounds 4.a, 4

ITA 1287/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T(Tp).A No.1287/Bang/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Novell Software Development (India) P. Ltd, Bagmane Tech Park, ‘D’ Block, 65/2, C. V. Raman Nagar, Byrasandra Post, Bangalore 560 093 .. Appellant Pan : Aaacn6992K V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -12(2), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. G. R. Reddy, Cit –Dr-I Heard On : 21.03.2016 Pronounced On : 31.03.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G. R. Reddy, CIT –DR-I
Section 144C

92A(2) of the Act, specify the limit of shareholding as not less than 26% of the voting power in the other enterprises. Thus according to him there was a statutory mandate for adopting 25% as the threshold limit. Ld. DR submitted that the 15% limit set out by the coordinate bench in the case of 24/7 customer.com

M/S CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 129/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2014-15 M/S. Continental Automotive Vs. Dcit, Components India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Industrial Bengaluru. Area, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru–560 099. Pan : Aakcs 9578 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92

92A of the Act defines the term "associated enterprise" in relation to another enterprise, in a manner where the enterprise directly or indirectly participates in the Management, control or capital of the other enterprise. • The term "arm's length price" (ALP) has been defined in clause (ii) of section 92F of the Act, to mean a price which is applied