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 “TDS”+ Section 92Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai252Delhi176Bangalore131Pune55Ahmedabad45Chennai27Kolkata23Hyderabad17Indore8Jaipur3Cuttack2Cochin2Karnataka1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)4Section 144C4Addition to Income4Transfer Pricing4TP Method4

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 265/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 349/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore
28 Feb 2017
AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 316/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 157/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT -CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

ITA 602/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

92C (1) of the Act states that – “The arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction or specified domestic transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such

THE DCIT-1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD., INDORE

ITA 607/IND/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

92C (1) of the Act states that – “The arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction or specified domestic transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P LTD., INDORE

ITA 622/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

92C (1) of the Act states that – “The arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction or specified domestic transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT RANGE 1(1), INDORE

ITA 601/IND/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

92C (1) of the Act states that – “The arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction or specified domestic transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such