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.

9 results for “reassessment”+ Section 92Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai61Delhi45Bangalore29Ahmedabad18Hyderabad14Kolkata9Chennai8Pune7Karnataka5Jaipur3Panaji1Calcutta1SC1Surat1

Key Topics

Section 92C28Section 143(2)13Section 143(3)11Section 144C(5)9Section 1489Section 143(1)7Disallowance5Reassessment5Section 1474Comparables/TP

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

ITA 69/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am At&S India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571 301 Kolkata – 700 069. Mysore District, Karnataka, India "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 2930 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha & Ms. Rituparna Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 37(1)Section 92C

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154 for any assessment year the proceedings of which have been completed before the 1st day of October, 2009. (3) Where during the course of any proceeding for the assessment of income

4
Transfer Pricing4
Addition to Income4

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

ITA 77/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.77/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) At & S India (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

For Appellant: Smt. Rituparna Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37Section 92C

section (1) and sub-section (2)of section 92C of the Act, which leads to violation of the provision of sub-section(3) of section 92CA of the Act read with sub-section (3) of section 92C of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 92C are given below for ready reference: “Section 92C: Computation of arm’s length price

M/S TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2597/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(5)Section 244ASection 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

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

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 785/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271Section 92C

92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) read with Rule 10B & 10C of Income Tax Rules' 1962 (the Rules). 4) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts & law to also ignore the fundamental fact that LIBOR is just the inter-bank rate to transact between banks and to determine arm's length interest rate for loan

M/S BUCYRUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 616/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Manoneet Dalal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Das, CIT, ld.DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

reassessment based on illegal reference to Learned TPO and questioning the validity of addition made by the Learned TPO on merits of the case. 3. Shri.Manoneet Dalal, FCA, the Learned AR argued on behalf of the assessee and Shri.R.R.Das, the Learned CIT DR argued on behalf of the revenue. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 599/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Mawheet Dalal, Advocate & Shri Gunjan Khanna, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 148Section 40Section 92C

reassessment. 2.3. In response to this, the ld DR argued that there is no requirement of pendency of scrutiny of assessment proceedings for making reference to ld TPO . It is purely in the discretion of the ld AO to refer the case to ld TPO for determination of ALP. The Labvantage Solution Pvt. Ltd. AY 2009-10 & 2010-11 reference

M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 617/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Mawheet Dalal, Advocate & Shri Gunjan Khanna, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 148Section 40Section 92C

reassessment. 2.3. In response to this, the ld DR argued that there is no requirement of pendency of scrutiny of assessment proceedings for making reference to ld TPO . It is purely in the discretion of the ld AO to refer the case to ld TPO for determination of ALP. The Labvantage Solution Pvt. Ltd. AY 2009-10 & 2010-11 reference

M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1051/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Mawheet Dalal, Advocate & Shri Gunjan Khanna, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 148Section 40Section 92C

reassessment. 2.3. In response to this, the ld DR argued that there is no requirement of pendency of scrutiny of assessment proceedings for making reference to ld TPO . It is purely in the discretion of the ld AO to refer the case to ld TPO for determination of ALP. The Labvantage Solution Pvt. Ltd. AY 2009-10 & 2010-11 reference

WITZENMANN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1423/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1423/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Witzenmann India Private Limited....……….........…..........….…… Appellant Nsc Building, Plot No.12, Block – Aq, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-91. [Pan: Aaach7739L] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata.......….....…….............…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Arun Chhabra, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 16, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessment Dated Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Pursuant To The Transfer Pricing Adjustment. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Impugned Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 12.04.2019 U/S 143(3)/147 Read With Section 144C & 144C(5) Of The Act Was Wrong & Illegal & Void Ab Initio. The Ld. Counsel Has Invited Our Attention To The Following Sequence Of Events: Particulars In Case Of The Appellant

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

reassessment proceedings, therefore, the Dispute Resolution Panel decided that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the aforesaid invalid and void draft assessment order. The Dispute Resolution Panel held that the case of the assessee not being a “eligible assessee” as per the provisions of section 144C(15) of the Act, therefore, it declined to interfere with the said order