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.

63 results for “section 68”+ Section 92Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai349Delhi338Bangalore178Ahmedabad74Kolkata63Pune49Hyderabad29Chennai25Jaipur18Indore13Surat7Dehradun6SC2Amritsar2Panaji2Karnataka2Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 92C61Transfer Pricing41Section 143(3)40Addition to Income39Section 144C(5)25Section 15424Deduction18Section 144C17Disallowance17Section 14A

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 214/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akash Mansinka, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92D

section 92C, which would warrant your goodself to disregard the analysis undertaken by the assessee and undertake a fresh analysis.) 3.7.6. The assessee pointed out the error in computation of PLI by the ld TPO as under :- 2· Error in computation of PLI of the assessee (Refer Point No. 5 of the notice) Reference point

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4

16
Comparables/TP15
Section 80I14

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DIC INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 181/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)(II)Section 43BSection 80HSection 92C

Section 92C of the Act. However the TPO u/s 92CA(3) the TPO rejected the assessee’s computation and evaluation of ALP. 4.2 The assessee in its transfer price study has worked out the mean PLI (operating profit/sales) of the comparable companies @ 3.10% in relation to its export to its AE. The assessee has demonstrated its operating profit

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. D I C INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1432/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)(II)Section 43BSection 80HSection 92C

Section 92C of the Act. However the TPO u/s 92CA(3) the TPO rejected the assessee’s computation and evaluation of ALP. 4.2 The assessee in its transfer price study has worked out the mean PLI (operating profit/sales) of the comparable companies @ 3.10% in relation to its export to its AE. The assessee has demonstrated its operating profit

N L C NALCO INDIA LTD PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ONDEO NALCO INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1256/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm& Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Mallikarjuna &
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

68,90,427/- was written off through provision account and an amount of Rs.36,34,283/- was directly written off in the Profit and Loss Account for the relevant previous year relevant to this assessment year. It is a fact that assessee is engaged in the manufacture of various types of chemicals which are used inter alia in steel, paper

NLC NALCO INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 529/KOL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm& Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Mallikarjuna &
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

68,90,427/- was written off through provision account and an amount of Rs.36,34,283/- was directly written off in the Profit and Loss Account for the relevant previous year relevant to this assessment year. It is a fact that assessee is engaged in the manufacture of various types of chemicals which are used inter alia in steel, paper

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J. J. EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1371/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 92C

68 Companies with positive net worth were selected 60 Export Sales Total Sales >50o% was selected 15 Companies after qualitative analysis 7 Final Comparables OP/TC Grabal Alok Impex Ltd. [Merged] 37.07% Hanung Toys &Textiles Ltd. 20.45% Jaipuria Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. 28.23% Kariwala Industries Ltd. 26.65% Sharadha Terry Products Ltd. 37.01% Silktex Ltd. 13.65% Welspum India Ltd. 13.55% Average

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J. J. EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1372/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 92C

68 Companies with positive net worth were selected 60 Export Sales Total Sales >50o% was selected 15 Companies after qualitative analysis 7 Final Comparables OP/TC Grabal Alok Impex Ltd. [Merged] 37.07% Hanung Toys &Textiles Ltd. 20.45% Jaipuria Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. 28.23% Kariwala Industries Ltd. 26.65% Sharadha Terry Products Ltd. 37.01% Silktex Ltd. 13.65% Welspum India Ltd. 13.55% Average

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

ITA 1998/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

92C of the I.T. Act for the purpose of determining the arm’s length price of the international transaction at Nil. He did not bring on record any comparable uncontrolled transaction for the purpose of determining the arm’s length price of the international transaction at Nil. 10. The ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

ITA 2646/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

92C of the I.T. Act for the purpose of determining the arm’s length price of the international transaction at Nil. He did not bring on record any comparable uncontrolled transaction for the purpose of determining the arm’s length price of the international transaction at Nil. 10. The ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision

M/S TDK INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. -11(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 203/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 144C(5)Section 92C

92C of the Act read with rule 10B of the Rules. Accordingly, we feel that TPO made proper enquiry and applied his mind to the details brought on record by assessee. He had agreed with the assessee that the international transactions covered by the TNMM analysis (including the intra-group service charge paid /payable to Nalco Pacific) adhered

AT & S INDIA PVT. LTD.,KARNATAKA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 179/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2011-12

Section 143(3)

68,97,22,939/- 7. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to DRP. The assessee before the DRP reiterated the submission made before the TPO. The assessee submitted that the AE being distributor is less complex entity in terms of FAR analysis ('Function-Asset- Risk'). Therefore the AE was selected as the 'tested party' and accordingly margin earned by AE (segmental

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

ITA 1197/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

68,339 + Rs.14,76,41,333 + Rs.18,66,50,461].Hence, there was a notional carry forward of losses of these eligible units to the tune of Rs.(-)43,21,86,963/-[Rs.10,58,78,328 + Rs.32,63,08,635] which, according to the AO, was to be adjusted/ set off against the eligible profits, if any, computed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

ITA 1777/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

68,339 + Rs.14,76,41,333 + Rs.18,66,50,461].Hence, there was a notional carry forward of losses of these eligible units to the tune of Rs.(-)43,21,86,963/-[Rs.10,58,78,328 + Rs.32,63,08,635] which, according to the AO, was to be adjusted/ set off against the eligible profits, if any, computed

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

ITA 1864/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

68,339 + Rs.14,76,41,333 + Rs.18,66,50,461].Hence, there was a notional carry forward of losses of these eligible units to the tune of Rs.(-)43,21,86,963/-[Rs.10,58,78,328 + Rs.32,63,08,635] which, according to the AO, was to be adjusted/ set off against the eligible profits, if any, computed

M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

ITA 1650/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

68,339 + Rs.14,76,41,333 + Rs.18,66,50,461].Hence, there was a notional carry forward of losses of these eligible units to the tune of Rs.(-)43,21,86,963/-[Rs.10,58,78,328 + Rs.32,63,08,635] which, according to the AO, was to be adjusted/ set off against the eligible profits, if any, computed

M/S TDK INDIA PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 282/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18
Section 144C(5)Section 92C

92C of the Act\nread with rule 10B of the Rules. Accordingly, we feel that TPO made proper enquiry and\napplied his mind to the details brought on record by assessee. He had agreed with the\nassessee that the international transactions covered by the TNMM analysis (including the\nintra-group service charge paid /payable to Nalco Pacific) adhered

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 529/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

Section 92B is quite wide and includes an arrangement, understanding or concerted action, which may be informal or in writing. It has been held by the special bench of Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of LG Electronics India Ltd. (supra), that if an assessee has simultaneously or independently advertised the brand or logo of the foreign

RECKITT DENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 404/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

Section 92B is quite wide and includes an arrangement, understanding or concerted action, which may be informal or in writing. It has been held by the special bench of Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of LG Electronics India Ltd. (supra), that if an assessee has simultaneously or independently advertised the brand or logo of the foreign

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 518/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

Section 92B is quite wide and includes an arrangement, understanding or concerted action, which may be informal or in writing. It has been held by the special bench of Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of LG Electronics India Ltd. (supra), that if an assessee has simultaneously or independently advertised the brand or logo of the foreign

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 625/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

Section 92B is quite wide and includes an arrangement, understanding or concerted action, which may be informal or in writing. It has been held by the special bench of Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of LG Electronics India Ltd. (supra), that if an assessee has simultaneously or independently advertised the brand or logo of the foreign