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.

47 results for “capital gains”+ Section 92Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi64Mumbai49Bangalore47Kolkata19Ahmedabad17Chennai16Pune10Jaipur7Hyderabad7Guwahati3Indore2Karnataka1Jabalpur1Chandigarh1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)40Section 92C39Transfer Pricing37Addition to Income36Comparables/TP33Section 10A27Section 9219Section 92D12Disallowance9Section 133(6)

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 370/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihallli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G

92D and 92E, "specified domestic transaction" in case of an assessee means any of the following transactions, not being an international transaction, namely:— (i) any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (2) of section 40A;* (ii) any transaction referred

Showing 1–20 of 47 · Page 1 of 3

8
TP Method8
Deduction7

M/S. WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2556/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R
Section 143(3)

92D and 92E, "specified domestic transaction" in case of an assessee means any of the following transactions, not being an international transaction, namely:— (i) any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 40A;* (ii) any transaction referred

OUTSOURCEPARTNERS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 443/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Parbat, CIT-III
Section 10ASection 92C(3)Section 92D

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Rules as well as the fresh search and in particular modifying/ rejecting the filters applied by the Appellant; 2.4. disregarding multiple year/ prior years' data as used by the Appellant in the TP documentation and holding that current year [(i.e. Financial Year ("FY") 2010-1 1] data for comparable companies

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. OUTSOURCE PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, all appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 526/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Parbat, CIT-III
Section 10ASection 92C(3)Section 92D

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Rules as well as the fresh search and in particular modifying/ rejecting the filters applied by the Appellant; 2.4. disregarding multiple year/ prior years' data as used by the Appellant in the TP documentation and holding that current year [(i.e. Financial Year ("FY") 2010-1 1] data for comparable companies

AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1244/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT-I(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92D

92D of the Act. In the TP Study, in respect of its software development services the Appellant arrived at a set of 48 comparable companies, having an average net cost plus margin of 12.43% as against that of 10.47% before working capital adjustment and 12.43% after working capital adjustment, of the Appellant. Since the Appellant’s margin

AMD INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 437/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N. Murthy, CIT-III(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 92C(3)

92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him:” 18. Rule 10B of the IT Rules, 1962 prescribes rules for Determination of arm’s length price under section

ITO vs. M/S AAMD INDIA PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 457/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N. Murthy, CIT-III(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 92C(3)

92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him:” 18. Rule 10B of the IT Rules, 1962 prescribes rules for Determination of arm’s length price under section

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

ITA 517/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar
Section 10ASection 143Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(iv)

Gains from Business' after claim of deduction under section 1 OA for the Bangalore and Pune units., the learned AO be directed to allow carry forward of the loss under the head 'Income from other Sources' amounting to Rs. 2, 16,017 for set off against income in subsequent years. 3. Interest under section 234B The learned AO has erred

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)

92D(3) vide letter dated 17/6/2016 and considered the financial profile at para. 2.1 as under: Valuation report was prepared and historical financial data referred at para 3.1 which is as under: Profit & loss account for March ending IT(TP)A No.2710/Bang/2017 Page 9 of 22 The TPO has also verified the audited historical balance sheets and provisional balance-sheets

MOOG CONTROLS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 551/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 92C

92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him:” 18. Rule 10B of the IT Rules, 1962 prescribes rules for Determination of arm’s length price under section

BROADCOM INDIA RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1180/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him:” IT(TP)A No. 1180/Bang/2011 Page 45 of 65 18. Rule 10B of the IT Rules, 1962 prescribes rules

SOFTWARE AG BANGALORE TECHN PVT LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1291/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 92

92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him:” 18. Rule 10B of the IT Rules, 1962 prescribes rules for Determination of arm’s length price under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S SOFTWARE AG BANGALORE TECHNOLGIES P LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1343/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 92

92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him:” 18. Rule 10B of the IT Rules, 1962 prescribes rules for Determination of arm’s length price under section

M/S. ARM EMBEDDED TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT,, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1112/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri I.P.S. Bindra, CIT(DR-I)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him:” 18. Rule 10B of the IT Rules, 1962 prescribes rules for Determination of arm’s length price under section

M/S ARM EMBEDDED TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1161/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri I.P.S. Bindra, CIT(DR-I)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him:” 18. Rule 10B of the IT Rules, 1962 prescribes rules for Determination of arm’s length price under section

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S KODIAK NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 532/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Shankar Prasad, K., JCIT(DR)
Section 92Section 92CSection 92E

capital adjustment. After 5% standard deduction under proviso to Sec.92CA(2) allowed by the CIT(A), the arithmetic mean would be 10.91% as against the Assessee’s profit margin of 10.08%. Therefore there would still be a very negligible addition that will be sustained even after the CIT(A)’s order. 9. The Revenue is in appeal before against

BROADCOM COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1276/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Ms. Shreya Loyalka, CA
Section 143(3)Section 92

Capital I-Q Information Systems (India) (P) Ltd. Supra) that KPO services IT(TP)A No.1276/Bang/2011 Page 30 of 54 are not comparable to software development services and are therefore not comparable. Following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Hyderabad Tribunal in the aforesaid case, we hold that this company, i.e. e-Zest Solutions

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S OBOPAY MOBILE TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 388/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeit(Tp)A No.469/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Obopay Mobile Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Technology India Private Of Income Tax, Circle 5 Limited, Enzyme Jnc Business (1)(2), Bengaluru. Center, 2Nd Floor, Mpk Mansion, No.18, Guava Garden, 5Th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 095. Pan No. Aaaco9074H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92CSection 92E

92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him:” 18. Rule 10B of the IT Rules, 1962 prescribes rules for Determination of arm’s length price under section

M/S OBOPAY MOBILE TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 469/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeit(Tp)A No.469/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Obopay Mobile Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Technology India Private Of Income Tax, Circle 5 Limited, Enzyme Jnc Business (1)(2), Bengaluru. Center, 2Nd Floor, Mpk Mansion, No.18, Guava Garden, 5Th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 095. Pan No. Aaaco9074H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92CSection 92E

92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him:” 18. Rule 10B of the IT Rules, 1962 prescribes rules for Determination of arm’s length price under section

SOFTWARE AG BANGALORE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1306/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Abraham P.Georgeit(Tp)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Naryana, CAFor Respondent: ShrI G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR-I)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92

92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 45 of 51 on the basis of such material or information or document available with him:” 18. Rule 10B of the IT Rules, 1962 prescribes rules