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.

61 results for “section 68”+ Section 92C(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi338Mumbai337Bangalore178Ahmedabad74Kolkata61Pune49Hyderabad28Chennai25Jaipur15Indore13Surat7Dehradun6SC2Amritsar2Panaji2Karnataka2Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 92C60Addition to Income39Transfer Pricing39Section 143(3)37Section 144C(5)24Section 15424Deduction18Section 144C17Disallowance17Section 14A

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 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

Showing 1–20 of 61 · Page 1 of 4

16
Section 80I14
Comparables/TP14
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

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

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

2 to section 92C which states that where two different ALPs are worked out by using two different methods then the TPO was required to work out the arithmetical mean of such prices. Similarly the assessee submitted for imported goods that the TNMM method was used to determine the ALP in the AY 2003-04 and the allegation

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

2 to section 92C which states that where two different ALPs are worked out by using two different methods then the TPO was required to work out the arithmetical mean of such prices. Similarly the assessee submitted for imported goods that the TNMM method was used to determine the ALP in the AY 2003-04 and the allegation

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

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

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TCG LIFESCIENCES LIMITED., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1053/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 1053/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 A.C.I.T., Circle-11(2) -Vs.- M/S. Tcg Lifesciences Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcc 0401 D] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 966/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Tcg Lifesciences Pvt.Ltd. -Vs- C.I.T.(A)-22, (Formerly “Tcg Lifesciences Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcc 0401 D] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) For The Assessee : Shri S.P.Singh, Irs (Rtd.) & Shri Manoneet Dalal & Ms.Gunjan Khanna, Cas Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Singh, IRS (Rtd.) & Shri ManoneetFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 92Section 92ASection 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92F

92C(3) is beyond this margin. Accordingly, an upward adjustment of rs.11,78,64,440/- is being made to the arm’s M/s. TCG LIfesciences Ltd. A.Yr.2010-11 length price of the loan. The total income of the assessee is to be upwardly adjusted by this amount. “ 10. Before the CIT(A), apart from the challenge to the merits

M/S TCG LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 966/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 1053/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 A.C.I.T., Circle-11(2) -Vs.- M/S. Tcg Lifesciences Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcc 0401 D] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 966/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Tcg Lifesciences Pvt.Ltd. -Vs- C.I.T.(A)-22, (Formerly “Tcg Lifesciences Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcc 0401 D] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) For The Assessee : Shri S.P.Singh, Irs (Rtd.) & Shri Manoneet Dalal & Ms.Gunjan Khanna, Cas Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Singh, IRS (Rtd.) & Shri ManoneetFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 92Section 92ASection 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92F

92C(3) is beyond this margin. Accordingly, an upward adjustment of rs.11,78,64,440/- is being made to the arm’s M/s. TCG LIfesciences Ltd. A.Yr.2010-11 length price of the loan. The total income of the assessee is to be upwardly adjusted by this amount. “ 10. Before the CIT(A), apart from the challenge to the merits

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

2 3.75 242,42,868 6.23 6,01,22,313 57,58,953 5.80 1,18,05,854 Vasavdatta TPP 3 3.75 580,49,350 6.09 13,58,35,479 57,43,246 5.80 1,17,73,654 Vasavdatta TPP 4 3.75 791,29,777 5.96 17,48,76,807 Hooghly

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

2 3.75 242,42,868 6.23 6,01,22,313 57,58,953 5.80 1,18,05,854 Vasavdatta TPP 3 3.75 580,49,350 6.09 13,58,35,479 57,43,246 5.80 1,17,73,654 Vasavdatta TPP 4 3.75 791,29,777 5.96 17,48,76,807 Hooghly

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

2 3.75 242,42,868 6.23 6,01,22,313 57,58,953 5.80 1,18,05,854 Vasavdatta TPP 3 3.75 580,49,350 6.09 13,58,35,479 57,43,246 5.80 1,17,73,654 Vasavdatta TPP 4 3.75 791,29,777 5.96 17,48,76,807 Hooghly

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

2 3.75 242,42,868 6.23 6,01,22,313 57,58,953 5.80 1,18,05,854 Vasavdatta TPP 3 3.75 580,49,350 6.09 13,58,35,479 57,43,246 5.80 1,17,73,654 Vasavdatta TPP 4 3.75 791,29,777 5.96 17,48,76,807 Hooghly

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 156Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

68,350/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has accepted the returned income by way of an assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act passed on 18.08.2016. The ld. Principal Commissioner, Siliguri took cognizance of revisionary powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and set aside the assessment order vide his order dated

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

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

M/S. TCG LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2169/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

68,889/-. He accordingly worked out the total Transfer Pricing Adjustment to be made in the assessee’s case at Rs.8,95,57,833/-. In the Draft Assessment Order dated 26.12.2016 addition to that extent was made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made further 2