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.

50 results for “TDS”+ Section 92Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai76Delhi50Bangalore34Chennai13Pune9Jaipur8Kolkata7Ahmedabad6Hyderabad4Karnataka1Cochin1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Transfer Pricing37Addition to Income29Comparables/TP29Section 143(3)28Section 92C25Section 92D20Disallowance19Section 144C16Section 271G16Section 271(1)(c)

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4873/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

92D and thus it is fit case for imposing u/s 271G. 2. That the penalty order passed by the ld AO u/s 271G on 08.02.2017 is liable to be quashed, because there are contradictions in the assessment order and penalty order. As per the assessment order dt. 29.12.2016, the penalty u/s 271G was imposed

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3

15
Penalty11
Section 1439

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6722/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

92D and thus it is fit case for imposing u/s 271G. 2. That the penalty order passed by the ld AO u/s 271G on 08.02.2017 is liable to be quashed, because there are contradictions in the assessment order and penalty order. As per the assessment order dt. 29.12.2016, the penalty u/s 271G was imposed

M/S. DENSO INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1078/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Denso India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit B-1/D4, Ground Floor, Circle-7(1) Mohan Cooperative Industrial New Delhi Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacd4255F (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv & Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv Respondent By Sh. Surendar Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2020

Section 144Section 254Section 92CSection 92D

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Rules; 4.3 carrying out a TP adjustment on the transaction of purchase of fixed assets, disregarding the separate benchmarking analysis carried out in the TP documentation by testing overseas entity as tested party; 4.4. incorrectly held that the appellant had applied overall TNMM and aggregating such transaction with purchase

GRANITE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 740/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Granite Services Dcit International India Private Vs Circle-10(2), Limited, Building No.7A, New Delhi 5Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, Sector -25A, Gurgaon-122002 Pan Aaccg3374Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (Rules); 3.3. arbitrarily rejecting/modifying the filters adopted by the Appellant in the TP study and imposing additional filters for the selection of comparables; 3.4. incorrectly selecting functionally different companies engaged in high-end technical, engineering and consultancy services as comparables and thereby resorting to cherry picking

MAVENIR INDIA PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMVERSE NETWORK SYSTEM INDIA PVT. LTD.),GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), GURGOAN

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 801/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrar Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Rules; 4.2. rejecting comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant in the TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability analysis based on application of the additional/ revised filters in determining the ALP; 4.3. not providing the search strategy and accept-reject reasons of the fresh economic analysis conducted

MANPOWERGROUP SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, DELHI , JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3585/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80JSection 92CSection 92D

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") on the basis of alleged distinguished functions performed by the employees of the Assessee engaged in rendering services under the IT segment and ITeS segment; 5.3. Violating the principles of natural justice by not sharing the search strategy adopted in this regard with

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 8347/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 92C

92D and after considering such evidence as the Transfer Pricing Officer may require on any specified points and after taking into account all relevant material which he has gathered, the Transfer Pricing Officer shall, by order in writing, determine the arm’s length price in relation to the international transaction in accordance with sub-section (3) of section

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 8346/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 92C

92D and after considering such evidence as the Transfer Pricing Officer may require on any specified points and after taking into account all relevant material which he has gathered, the Transfer Pricing Officer shall, by order in writing, determine the arm’s length price in relation to the international transaction in accordance with sub-section (3) of section

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4516/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

TDS), advance tax and self- assessment tax amounting to INR 84,90,70,726/- not given by the AO. (vii) Ground No. 36 pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. G. I.T.A. No. 6537/DEL/2016 pertaining to AY 2012-13, the assessee company has raised the following issues

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4517/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

TDS), advance tax and self- assessment tax amounting to INR 84,90,70,726/- not given by the AO. (vii) Ground No. 36 pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. G. I.T.A. No. 6537/DEL/2016 pertaining to AY 2012-13, the assessee company has raised the following issues

M/S. PEPSI FOODS LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1044/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

TDS), advance tax and self- assessment tax amounting to INR 84,90,70,726/- not given by the AO. (vii) Ground No. 36 pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. G. I.T.A. No. 6537/DEL/2016 pertaining to AY 2012-13, the assessee company has raised the following issues

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4518/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

TDS), advance tax and self- assessment tax amounting to INR 84,90,70,726/- not given by the AO. (vii) Ground No. 36 pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. G. I.T.A. No. 6537/DEL/2016 pertaining to AY 2012-13, the assessee company has raised the following issues

PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2511/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

TDS), advance tax and self- assessment tax amounting to INR 84,90,70,726/- not given by the AO. (vii) Ground No. 36 pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. G. I.T.A. No. 6537/DEL/2016 pertaining to AY 2012-13, the assessee company has raised the following issues

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 6582/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

TDS), advance tax and self- assessment tax amounting to INR 84,90,70,726/- not given by the AO. (vii) Ground No. 36 pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. G. I.T.A. No. 6537/DEL/2016 pertaining to AY 2012-13, the assessee company has raised the following issues

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 52/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

92D and 92E, “international transaction” means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 868/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

92D and 92E, “international transaction” means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 6741/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

92D and 92E, “international transaction” means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS LTD.,, GURGAON

ITA 3410/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

92D and 92E, “international transaction” means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5315/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

92D and 92E, “international transaction” means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1567/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

92D and 92E, “international transaction” means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such