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.

12 results for “disallowance”+ Section 92Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai86Delhi64Ahmedabad16Hyderabad13Bangalore12Jaipur11Chennai9Pune9Kolkata7Visakhapatnam2Agra2Cochin1Nagpur1Chandigarh1Raipur1Rajkot1Surat1Varanasi1Indore1

Key Topics

Section 270A9Section 143(3)8Addition to Income7Deduction6Transfer Pricing6Comparables/TP6Section 2745Section 92D4Section 92C4Penalty

APTEAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 422/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 422/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Aptean India Pvt. Ltd., 1/2, 8Th Floor, Level 5, The Assistant Golden Heights, Commissioner Of 59Th C Cross Road, Income Tax, 4Th M Block, Circle – 1(1)(1), Rajajinagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 010. Pan: Aaacc5890M Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-01-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 25/03/2022 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another General Ground 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Final Assessment Order Passed By National Faceless

For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar
Section 143(3)Section 92D

section 92D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') read with rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') on the ground that the appellant did not apply appropriate filters and accordingly contended, that the data used in computing arm's length price (ALP') is not reliable or correct. 4. On the facts and circumstances

4
Disallowance4
Section 2503

ASTRAZENECA PHARMA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 284/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

disallowance of ESOP expenses made under Section 37(1) of the Act. 8. The ld. D.R. submitted that ESOP issue is covered by APA dated 16.6.2023. No further deduction to be allowed. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In our opinion, this is an allowable expenditure in view of the judgement

EBIX TRAVELS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 47/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22
Section 143Section 144BSection 144CSection 234BSection 32Section 92CSection 92D

disallowance\nof depreciation of ₹ 1,845,615 was added to the total income\npursuant to the direction passed by The Dispute Resolution\nPanel 1, New Delhi (the learned DRP) dated 27/9/2024 in\nthe draft assessment order passed on 26/12/2023 wherein the\norder under section 92CA (3) was passed by the learned TPO\nproposing the adjustment.\n2. Assessee is aggrieved with

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1054/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21
Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 40Section 43

disallowance;\n(d)the amount of under-reported income represented by any addition made in\nconformity with the arm's length price determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer,\nwhere the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed\nunder section 92D

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

M/S. AARIS GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 177/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 177/Bang/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 234BSection 92D

section 92D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') read with Rule 10D of the Income- tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') and thereby erred in rejecting the TP documentation maintained by the Appellant. 3:3 The AO/TPO/DRP have erred in rejecting the detailed functional and economic analysis and methodical search process undertaken by the Appellant to identify Page

M/S. PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Ali Asgar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92D

Section 92D of the Act, in good faith and with due diligence; 6.2. Rejecting the filters selected by the Appellant as captured in the TP documentation and adopting certain addition filters which are not in accordance with the jurisprudence laid down by various appellate forums; 6.3. Application of related party transaction (‘RPT’) filter by applying an inappropriate interpretation of computing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1666/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Sri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, CA
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 250Section 270ASection 274

disallowance; (d)the amount of under-reported income represented by any addition made in conformity with the arm's length price determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE vs. L JAVERCHAND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1542/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. No.1, 2Nd Floor & 3Rd Floor, Choksi Chamber Dcit 1Stagyari Lane Vs. Central Circle-1 Zaveri Bazar Mangaluru Mumbai 400 002

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 274

disallowance; (d)the amount of under-reported income represented by any addition made in conformity with the arm's length price determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D

MR. NATESHAN SAMPATH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1779/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Mahesh G., A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 274

disallowance; (d)the amount of under-reported income represented by any addition made in conformity with the arm's length price determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D

LENOVO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for above terms

ITA 281/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sankar K Ganeshan, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

disallowing the unrealized foreign exchange loss amounting to INR 17,55,00,000 claimed as a deduction under section 37 of the Act while computing the taxable income. 48. The Honourable DRP and learned AO have erred in law and on facts by treating the unrealized foreign exchange loss as marked-to-market loss, arising to the Appellant on account

DELIVERHEALTH SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS NUANCE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 721/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 92C

section 271(1)(c) of the act mechanically and without recording any adequate satisfaction for such initiation Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before