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.

8 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 92Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Kolkata9Chennai8Delhi8Hyderabad4Bangalore3Mumbai2Pune1Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)8Section 80I8Addition to Income7Section 2504Section 80G4Section 115J4Section 92C4Transfer Pricing4Deduction4Comparables/TP

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

condone the delay of 25 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, & in law the assessment order passed by the Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National e-Assessment Centre (‘the 3 Ld. AO’) under Section

EGIS INTERNATIONAL S.A. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

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

3
Section 1432
Section 92C(3)2
ITA 1663/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17 Egis International S.A. Vs. Acit T-305, Tf, Circle-1Nt. Tax 1(2)(2) Tirupati Plaza, New Delhi. Sector-11 (Mlu), Pocket 4, Plot No. 11 Dwarka, New Delhi – 110 075. Pan Aabcb7760L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR
Section 92C(3)

92C(3) of the Act are satisfied in the present case. While doing so, the Ld AO/ Ld TPO/ Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in not acknowledging that:  even after rejection of 2 comparable companies identified in the Transfer Pricing Report (viz. Anand Projects Limited and Wapcos Ltd.), the Comparable Set has 6 Companies and therefore, there was no requirement

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. SMR AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS INDIA LTD.

ITA - 164 / 2023HC Delhi20 Mar 2023
Section 40ASection 6Section 80Section 80ASection 92B

condonation of delay of 54 days in filing the appeal] 2. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 3. Broadly, the only issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal] was correct in holding that the Specified Domestic Transactions (SDTs) did not attract the regime of transfer pricing, in view

LOUIS DREYFUS COMPANY INDIA PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 808/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate; 8sFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, [CIT] - D. R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 154

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed return declaring loss of Rs. 64,17,81,731/- which has been processed by CPC. Later, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Draft order u/s 144C of the Act was passed on 21/12/2019 by assessing the income

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 2587/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

92C (2) of the act.\n33. Further in case of the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 ,\nexternal corporate of purchase price of power from SEB is used as a\ncomparable discarding the Indian energy exchange rate by the learned CIT –\nA, and the same order has not been challenged before the higher forum, it\nbecomes final. This shows that

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 927/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

92C (2) of the act.\n\n33. Further in case of the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 ,\nexternal corporate of purchase price of power from SEB is used as a\ncomparable discarding the Indian energy exchange rate by the learned CIT –\nA, and the same order has not been challenged before the higher forum, it\nbecomes final. This shows

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

ITA 704/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

92C (2) of the act.\n\n33. Further in case of the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 ,\nexternal corporate of purchase price of power from SEB is used as a\ncomparable discarding the Indian energy exchange rate by the learned CIT –\nA, and the same order has not been challenged before the higher forum, it\nbecomes final. This shows

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

ITA 4328/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

92C (2) of the act.\n33. Further in case of the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 ,\nexternal corporate of purchase price of power from SEB is used as a\ncomparable discarding the Indian energy exchange rate by the learned CIT –\nA, and the same order has not been challenged before the higher forum, it\nbecomes final. This shows that