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.

60 results for “capital gains”+ Section 92Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai158Delhi147Ahmedabad69Kolkata62Bangalore60Hyderabad24Chennai21Chandigarh12Pune12Amritsar7Indore5Surat5Visakhapatnam3Jaipur3Karnataka3Guwahati2Calcutta1Jabalpur1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)63Section 92C63Transfer Pricing55Addition to Income36Comparables/TP36Section 92B19Disallowance18Section 9214TP Method13Section 133(6)

SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 404/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 404/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sasken Technologies Ltd., (Formerly Known As The Deputy Sasken Communication Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 139/25, Domlur Circle – 6(1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs6424R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 15-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2017 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General:- The Learned Ao & The Drp Erred In Passing The Order / Directions In The Manner Passed By Them. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 133(6)Section 2(24)Section 92BSection 92C

92B(1) even without considering the Explanation inserted vide Finance Act, 2012. The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Siro Clinpharm Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) has restricted its finding only to the applicability of Explanation in the cases where the assessment was completed prior to the insertion of the said Explanation retrospectively. Even otherwise the earlier

Showing 1–20 of 60 · Page 1 of 3

11
Section 10A11
Section 144C(13)10

XCHANGING SOLUTIONS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1294/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I (D.R)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 211(6)Section 244A

92B subject to transfer pricing. 30 IT(TP)A Nos.1294/Bang/2012 & 166/Bang/2014 18 : Without prejudice to Ground No. 17 above, the learned TPO and the learned AO have erred, in law and on facts, by not considering the impact of working capital adjustment and making an addition in this regard. 19 : Without prejudice to Ground No. 1, the learned

THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 303/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)

capital in the markets, overall economic development and level of competition and whether the markets are wholesale or retail." As per Rule 10B(3), an uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if :— "E (3) An uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if— (i) none of the differences, if any, between the transactions being compared

MEDREICH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 451/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 451/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Medreich Ltd., No. 12/8, Medreich The Assistant House, Commissioner Of Saraswati Ammal Income Tax, Street, Central Circle – Maruti Seva Nagar, 1(2), Vs. Bangalore – 560 033. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm1458Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Acit, Central Circle – 1(2), Bangalore Dated 26/04/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1.1 The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore (`A0') Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act) In The Manner Passed

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

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 c) passing the orders without considering all the submissions and/or without appreciating properly the facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable. 3. Grounds relating to computation

M/S SUBEX LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 107/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Subex Ltd., Rmz Ecoworld, The Income Tax Outer Ring Road, Officer, Devarabisanahalli, Ward – 6 (1)(4), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/10/2018 Passed By Ld.Ito, Ward – 6(1)(4), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment & Reference To Learned Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law 1.1. The Income Tax Officer. Ward — 6(1)(4), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer Or 'Ld. Ao') Erred In Making A Reference To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing —Range 2(2)(1) (Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld. Tpo'), Inter Alia, Since He Has Not Recorded

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

gain has not been claimed in the computation of income and forms part of computing the margin as per transfer pricing provisions. The Ld.TPO is directed to consider the claim in accordance with the above view in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 (supra). 10. Ground no. 6 is in respect of interest on trade receivables

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 2434/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 234B

capital in the markets, overall economic development and level of competition and whether the markets are wholesale or retail." As per Rule 10B(3), an uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if :— "E (3) An uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if— (i) none of the differences, if any, between the transactions being compared

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2248/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 156

capital in the markets, overall economic development and level of competition and whether the markets are wholesale or retail." As per Rule 10B(3), an uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if :— "E (3) An uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if— (i) none of the differences, if any, between the transactions being compared

M/S. HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2243/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Biju, M.K., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80GSection 92C

92B of the Act. We also perused decision relied upon by Ld.AR. In our considered opinion, these are factually distinguishable and thus, we reject argument advanced by Ld.AR. IT(TP)A No.2243/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 24 23.8. Alternatively, it has been argued that in TNMM, working capital adjustment subsumes sundry creditors. In such situation computing interest on outstanding receivables

LOGIX MICROSYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 453/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranit(Tp)A No.453/Bang/2015 & It(Tp)A No.186/Bang/2016 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

92B(1) of the Act till the date of allotment it will constitute as capital financing/advance to the AE. We hold accordingly. 35. As regards the alternative plea of the assessee, we find substance so far as the applicability of LIBOR because the remittance has been made in foreign currency and therefore it is appropriate to apply the LIBOR rate

LOGIX MICROSYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 186/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranit(Tp)A No.453/Bang/2015 & It(Tp)A No.186/Bang/2016 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

92B(1) of the Act till the date of allotment it will constitute as capital financing/advance to the AE. We hold accordingly. 35. As regards the alternative plea of the assessee, we find substance so far as the applicability of LIBOR because the remittance has been made in foreign currency and therefore it is appropriate to apply the LIBOR rate

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 289/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

gains of business or profession’.” When we read the definition of the word “paid” u/s 43(2) in juxtaposition to section 37(1), the position which emerges is that it is not only paying of expenditure but also incurring of the expenditure which entails deduction u/s 37(1) subject to the fulfilment of other conditions. …………………………………………………………………………… by undertaking to issue shares

FINASTRA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 268/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80G

gain). This being so, the TPO ought to have applied the upper turnover 7 IT(TP)A No. 268/Bang/2021 M/s. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. filter while selecting companies comparable to the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Autodesk India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT

M/S. BORQS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 310/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri. Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

gain on foeign exchange fluctuation) and the Operating Cost was Rs.21,44,99,173/-. The Operating profit (Operating income – Operating cost was Rs.3,72,15,373/-. Thus the OP/TC was arrived at 17.35%. The Assessee chose companies who are engaged in providing similar services such as the Assessee. The Assessee identified companies whose average arithmetic mean of profit margin

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

THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 3071/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)

capital in the markets, overall economic development and level of competition and whether the markets are wholesale or retail." As per Rule 10B(3), an uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if :— "E (3) An uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if— (i) none of the differences, if any, between the transactions being compared

M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1364/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 928Section 92C

Gains of Business or Profession" do not refer to or include the amounts computed under chapter X. (iii) there is no provision in chapter X indicating that it would override the computation provisions of business income or the normal understanding of the term "income". 4. GROUNDS ON DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE & ADJUSTMENT MADE THEREON The learned Assessing Officer

MFX INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 251/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144B

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 (c) passing the orders without considering all the submissions and/or without appreciating properly the facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable. (d) in not restricting the TP adjustment

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

92B(2) of the Act are therefore satisfied to conclude that the two entities are deemed AEs and the transactions between them are consequently international transactions.” 5.1 In computing ALP, the DRP held as follows: “7.1 The TPO has adopted the CUP method to determine the ALP of the international transaction. This is discussed in para

STERLING COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1497/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

capital Adjustment(Annexure-F) 1.00% Adj.Arithmetic mean PLI 23.00% Arm’s Length Price: Operating Cost Rs.4,82,74,952 Arms Length Margin 23.00% of the operating Cost Arms Length Price (ALP) Rs.6,51,61,645/- At 123% of operating cost 38.7 Price received vis-à-vis the Arms Length Price: The price charged by the tax payer to its Associated

AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1111/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Gain Communication Private Limited (reference: ITA No. 1685/PN/07 - Pune). 1.2.13. in accepting Igate Global Solutions Limited, and Thirdware Solution Limited as a comparable even though no segmental data is available. 1.2.14. in rejecting SIP Technologies and Exports Limited based on the abnormal business activity filter without demonstrating how abnormal business activity i.e. the investment made by SIP Technologies and Exports