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.

35 results for “house property”+ Section 92Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai56Delhi35Bangalore29Ahmedabad12Kolkata11Jaipur6Hyderabad5Chennai5Indore1Karnataka1Pune1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Transfer Pricing31Section 143(3)24Addition to Income22Comparables/TP21Section 92C17Section 144C13Section 92D10Section 80H9Disallowance9Section 133(6)

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

ITA/16/2014HC Delhi16 Mar 2015

92D. (See judgment dated 16th December, 2013 in ITA No. 306/2012 titled Li & Fung India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax of the Delhi High Court). Five Methods 65. Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (‗CUP Method‘, for short) compares price charged for the property or service in a controlled transaction with the price charged for comparable property or service

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4280/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

6
TP Method6
Section 14A5
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271ASection 44DSection 5Section 92C

92D, the prescribed income-tax authority referred to in the said sub-section may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of five hundred thousand rupees.” (emphasis supplied) 54. He submitted that in terms of section 271AA(1)(ii), penalty of 2% of the value of each international transaction may be levied for failure

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CORNELL OVERSEAS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 2166/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 2166/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Dcit, Vs Cornell Overseas (P) Ltd., Circle-3(1), B-235, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc0034F Assessee By : Ms. Vandana Bhandari, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 28.02.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xx, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 28Section 32Section 80HSection 90C

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: Provided that an opportunity shall be given by the Assessing Officer by serving a notice calling upon the assessee

M/S. MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5797/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble, [Assessment Year: 2008-09]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Rules; (ii) not appreciating that payment towards service fees/reimbursements is closely linked to the primary business segments/ functions of the appellant and erred in analysing the transaction separately for the determination of arm’s length price; (iii) rejecting the Transactional Net Margin Method f'TNMM”) adopted by the appellant

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

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

ITA 1904/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O. P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Avaya India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Tower-B, First Floor, Global Circle-3(2), Room No.380-B, Business Park, Mg Road, C.R. Building, New Delhi Gurgaon Pan :Aaeca3592N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92Section 92D

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Rules; 4 4.2 rejecting the Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM') as the most appropriate method to test the transaction pertaining to availing of intra group services, without appreciating that the transaction is closely linked to the function of the Appellant of providing ITES and MSS; 4.3 applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price

ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5553/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 920(3)Section 92D

92D of the Act Alcatel Lucent India Ltd. read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’) and in particular modifying/ rejecting the filters applied by the Appellant; 1.4. committing certain factual errors in accept- reject of comparables included in/ excluded from in the final set of companies; 1.5. disregarding multiple year/ prior years’ data as used

ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5554/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 920(3)Section 92D

92D of the Act Alcatel Lucent India Ltd. read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’) and in particular modifying/ rejecting the filters applied by the Appellant; 1.4. committing certain factual errors in accept- reject of comparables included in/ excluded from in the final set of companies; 1.5. disregarding multiple year/ prior years’ data as used

NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 7745/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: disregarding the ALP determined by the Appellant and proceeded to determine the ALP himself.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

92D of the Act. 3.4. That on fact of the case and in law, Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/ Hon'ble DRP has erred in application of inappropriate filters based on different financial year end, export service income and employee cost for identifying companies comparable to the Appellant. 3.5. That on the facts of the case

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 6337/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

property associated with the sale (vii) Foreign currency receipt (viii) Alternatives realistically available with the buyer and the seller. 81. In OECD Transfer Pricing guidelines at II-3 paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9 it is states as follows: "2.8 It may be difficult to find a transaction between independent enterprises that is similar enough to a controlled transacting such that

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JSL LTD.,, HISAR

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 4110/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

property associated with the sale (vii) Foreign currency receipt (viii) Alternatives realistically available with the buyer and the seller. 81. In OECD Transfer Pricing guidelines at II-3 paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9 it is states as follows: "2.8 It may be difficult to find a transaction between independent enterprises that is similar enough to a controlled transacting such that

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

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

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

ITA 888/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254Section 92C

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

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

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 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 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

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 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

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. 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