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.

11 results for “section 68”+ Section 92Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi114Mumbai108Bangalore53Ahmedabad28Chennai18Pune12Kolkata11Jaipur9Hyderabad8Dehradun6Visakhapatnam2Karnataka1Indore1

Key Topics

Section 92C8Section 271A8Transfer Pricing7Section 143(3)6Deduction5Section 144C(5)4Addition to Income4Section 92D3Disallowance3Comparables/TP

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

92D. If any one of such circumstances exists, the Assessing Officer may reject the price adopted by (he assessee and determine the arm's length price in accordance with the same rules. " The principle coming out of the CBDT circular above has also been implicitly brought out by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT"), Delhi bench in Mentor

3
Section 143(3)(II)2
Section 80H2

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1992/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 271Section 271ASection 92DSection 92E

68,77,800/- being 2% of the value of international transactions of the assessee-company with its Associated Enterprises. 3. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271AA was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and after considering the submissions made on behalf of the assessee-company

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

68,1514.00. With regard to the trading function, the TPO noted that while in case of purchases made from unrelated parties for making sales to unrelated parties, the gross level margin on sales was 23%. This he considered as the arm's length margin for trading activity in uncontrolled circumstances and selected the RPM as the most appropriate method

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

68,1514.00. With regard to the trading function, the TPO noted that while in case of purchases made from unrelated parties for making sales to unrelated parties, the gross level margin on sales was 23%. This he considered as the arm's length margin for trading activity in uncontrolled circumstances and selected the RPM as the most appropriate method

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

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 539/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 234CSection 80JSection 91

68,548/- and addition of Rs.13,63,534/- towards corporate guarantee to Tega Chile. 7. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee had made two fold contentions. Firstly, contending that the alleged transactions do not fall under the category of international transactions and, therefore, no TP adjustment was needed. Secondly, taking an alternative plea it is stated that even

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1783/KOL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata……..........….…..........…........Appellant Vs. M/S. Epcos India Pvt. Ltd............................………………..................................……………..........Respondent Kulia Kanchrapara Road Kalyani, Nadia Pin – 741 251 [Pan : Aaace 4000 H] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit D/R & Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Smt. Rituparna Sinha, Fca & S.C. Giri C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 10Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 250

92D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 which is filed with the Ld. TPO during the course of proceedings under section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.  It is stated in paragraph no. 9 that the assessee has not purchased the same raw materials / components

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LITD.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 2489/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2489/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D(1)

92D read with Rule 10D of the Act. 7.2. The assessee submitted the details of AMP expenditure for the financial year 2012-13 as under:- Media Spend Agency Fees Lighting 22,59,34,147 14,61,97,113 Consumer lifestyle 31,74,94,505 5,23,20,770 Health care 67,85,293 96,76,586 Corporate

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 863/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

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

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

section 32 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules, depreciation @ 30% would be available if the following conditions are satisfied: i) Moulds are owned by the assessee; ii) Moulds re used for the purpose of assessee’s business; and iii) Moulds are exclusively used in the rubber / plastic factory (b) In the instant case, moulds were

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 539/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

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

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

section 32 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules, depreciation @ 30% would be available if the following conditions are satisfied: i) Moulds are owned by the assessee; ii) Moulds re used for the purpose of assessee’s business; and iii) Moulds are exclusively used in the rubber / plastic factory (b) In the instant case, moulds were