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.

92 results for “house property”+ Section 92Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi92Mumbai80Ahmedabad54Kolkata34Bangalore27Chennai17Hyderabad12Surat6Jaipur5Indore4Karnataka3Pune3Ranchi1Telangana1

Key Topics

Transfer Pricing74Section 143(3)73Addition to Income63Section 92C55Comparables/TP40Section 144C36Section 80I30Deduction30Disallowance23

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

ITA 7691/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr
Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR 2 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Date of Hearing 29.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. : These appeals have been filed challenging additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Showing 1–20 of 92 · Page 1 of 5

Section 92B20
Section 115J16
Section 14A15

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

ITA 1662/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr
Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR 2 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Date of Hearing 29.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. : These appeals have been filed challenging additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

ITA 1811/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr
Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR 2 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Date of Hearing 29.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. : These appeals have been filed challenging additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1835/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-2, New Delhi M/S. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., E- 9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca0364L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.S. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 145C(5)Section 92BSection 92F

Housing Ltd. 1.00 12. Tamil Nadu Trade Promotion Organization 0.8 13. Usha Breco Ltd. 4.97 14. Vista Entertainment Ltd. 3.16 15. Adrenalin Esystem Ltd. 6.74 16. Interworld Digital Ltd. 0.10 17. NSE IT Ltd. 0.01 18. Newgen Software Technologies Ltd. 2.03 19. Nucleus Software Exports Ltd. 1.03 20. Powersoft Global Solutions Ltd. 0.35 12 21. Supertech Solutions

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of in above terms

ITA/357/2019HC Delhi04 Jan 2021
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 260A

section 92B(2) i.e., there exists a prior agreement 2021:DHC:11-DB ITA 247/2019 and connected matters Page 11 of 17 in relation to such transaction between Citigroup Inc. (third person) and Wipro Ltd. (associated enterprise). In the light of this structure of transaction, it ceases to be uncontrolled transaction and, hence, Wipro Technology Services Ltd., disqualifies to become

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of in above terms

ITA/652/2019HC Delhi04 Jan 2021
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 260A

section 92B(2) i.e., there exists a prior agreement 2021:DHC:11-DB ITA 247/2019 and connected matters Page 11 of 17 in relation to such transaction between Citigroup Inc. (third person) and Wipro Ltd. (associated enterprise). In the light of this structure of transaction, it ceases to be uncontrolled transaction and, hence, Wipro Technology Services Ltd., disqualifies to become

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of in above terms

ITA/710/2019HC Delhi04 Jan 2021
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 260A

section 92B(2) i.e., there exists a prior agreement 2021:DHC:11-DB ITA 247/2019 and connected matters Page 11 of 17 in relation to such transaction between Citigroup Inc. (third person) and Wipro Ltd. (associated enterprise). In the light of this structure of transaction, it ceases to be uncontrolled transaction and, hence, Wipro Technology Services Ltd., disqualifies to become

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of in above terms

ITA/247/2019HC Delhi04 Jan 2021
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 260A

section 92B(2) i.e., there exists a prior agreement 2021:DHC:11-DB ITA 247/2019 and connected matters Page 11 of 17 in relation to such transaction between Citigroup Inc. (third person) and Wipro Ltd. (associated enterprise). In the light of this structure of transaction, it ceases to be uncontrolled transaction and, hence, Wipro Technology Services Ltd., disqualifies to become

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

houses, advertising agencies, marketing bodies etc.) and cannot be treated as related party transactions merely because some incidental benefit is said to accrue to the AEs. 24. The Ld. Counsel also made a without prejudice argument regarding the quantum and composition of AMP expenditure taken by the TPO. The TPO while determining the value of international transaction

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

houses, advertising agencies, marketing bodies etc.) and cannot be treated as related party transactions merely because some incidental benefit is said to accrue to the AEs. 24. The Ld. Counsel also made a without prejudice argument regarding the quantum and composition of AMP expenditure taken by the TPO. The TPO while determining the value of international transaction

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

ITA 3248/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

houses, advertising agencies, marketing bodies etc.) and cannot be treated as related party transactions merely because some incidental benefit is said to accrue to the AEs. 24. The Ld. Counsel also made a without prejudice argument regarding the quantum and composition of AMP expenditure taken by the TPO. The TPO while determining the value of international transaction

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

houses, advertising agencies, marketing bodies etc.) and cannot be treated as related party transactions merely because some incidental benefit is said to accrue to the AEs. 24. The Ld. Counsel also made a without prejudice argument regarding the quantum and composition of AMP expenditure taken by the TPO. The TPO while determining the value of international transaction

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

houses, advertising agencies, marketing bodies etc.) and cannot be treated as related party transactions merely because some incidental benefit is said to accrue to the AEs. 24. The Ld. Counsel also made a without prejudice argument regarding the quantum and composition of AMP expenditure taken by the TPO. The TPO while determining the value of international transaction

SANSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 8 , NEW DELHI

ITA 2511/DEL/2018[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

houses, advertising agencies, marketing bodies etc.) and cannot be treated as related party transactions merely because some incidental benefit is said to accrue to the AEs. 24. The Ld. Counsel also made a without prejudice argument regarding the quantum and composition of AMP expenditure taken by the TPO. The TPO while determining the value of international transaction

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

houses, advertising agencies, marketing bodies etc.) and cannot be treated as related party transactions merely because some incidental benefit is said to accrue to the AEs. 24. The Ld. Counsel also made a without prejudice argument regarding the quantum and composition of AMP expenditure taken by the TPO. The TPO while determining the value of international transaction

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

houses, advertising agencies, marketing bodies etc.) and cannot be treated as related party transactions merely because some incidental benefit is said to accrue to the AEs. 24. The Ld. Counsel also made a without prejudice argument regarding the quantum and composition of AMP expenditure taken by the TPO. The TPO while determining the value of international transaction

PERFETTI VAN MELLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 463/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “I-2”, New Delhi

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Shrivastava, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80ISection 92C

property of the AE. For instance, ‘Alpenliebe, Mangofillz’, a variant of one of the brands owned by the AE that was developed in India, is registered as a trademark in the name of the AE. The TPO came to the conclusion that the 11 assessee incurred AMP expenses for promoting the brand / trade name which was owned

FUJITSU INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 693/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Fujitsu India P. Ltd., Vs National Faceless Assessment Rectangale-1, D-4, Centre, District Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi – 110 019. Pan: Aaacf4170D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate, Ms Shruti Khimta, Ar & Shri Kaskaran Singh, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 Order

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

house hold product but is engaged in trading of IT products and provision of IT solutions and services in India. Which is a niche area and restricted cutomer base. Therefore that all the more needed to put on record on the basis of some material that AMP expenses were integral part of assessee’s business functions 11 to create some

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 462/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92F

House, 15 Appeal Centre (NFAC), Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACT3770D Assessee by : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv Ms. Tanya, Adv Ms. Shivani, Adv Revenue by: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR Date of Hearing 20/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 17/04/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, AM 1. Assessee M/s. Tupperware Aker Powergas

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(1) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2409/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92F

House, 15 Appeal Centre (NFAC), Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACT3770D Assessee by : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv Ms. Tanya, Adv Ms. Shivani, Adv Revenue by: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR Date of Hearing 20/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 17/04/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, AM 1. Assessee M/s. Tupperware Aker Powergas