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.

2 results for “TDS”+ Section 92A(2)(i)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi24Mumbai19Kolkata15Bangalore15Pune6Chennai5Hyderabad2Cuttack2Jaipur1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)6Section 143(2)2Section 92C2Section 144C(5)2Section 14A2Transfer Pricing2Depreciation2Disallowance2Addition to Income2Set Off of Losses

NEOVANTAGE BIO-TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE 5(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 924/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

section 92A(2)(c) of the Act was not satisfied since the loan advanced did not constitute ITA Nos.923 & 924/Hyd/2024 21 51% of the book value of total assets on the date of agreement. Accordingly, the lender and the assessee cannot be treated as Associated Enterprises (“AEs”), and no benchmarking is permissible. In their second contention, the Ld. AR submitted

2

NEOVANTAGE INNOVATION PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 923/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

section 92A(2)(c) of the Act was not satisfied since the loan advanced did not constitute ITA Nos.923 & 924/Hyd/2024 21 51% of the book value of total assets on the date of agreement. Accordingly, the lender and the assessee cannot be treated as Associated Enterprises (“AEs”), and no benchmarking is permissible. In their second contention, the Ld. AR submitted