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.

274 results for “capital gains”+ Section 92Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai274Bangalore216Delhi214Ahmedabad62Kolkata61Chennai35Pune29Hyderabad22Indore11Jaipur7Surat5Guwahati5Cochin4Visakhapatnam3Panaji1Karnataka1Jabalpur1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Transfer Pricing68Section 143(3)58Addition to Income57Section 14A49Disallowance48Section 92C40Deduction34Section 144C(5)23Section 32(1)23Section 115J

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VOLTAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 7029/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2020AY 2013-14
Section 14A

Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer pricing - Computation of arm's length price (Comparables and adjustments/Adjustment - Corporate guarantee fee) -Assessment year 2012-13 - During relevant year, assesses furnished corporate guarantee in respect of loan availed by its foreign AE - Assessee did not charge any corporate guarantee fee - In transfer pricing proceedings, TPO opined that assesses should have

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 8739/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Pfizer Limited, Acit Range 8(2), Patel Estate, Off S.V. Rd. Aayakar Bahwan, बनाम/ Jogeshwari (W), M.K. Marg, Vs. Mumba-400102 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp3334M

Showing 1–20 of 274 · Page 1 of 14

...
22
Depreciation21
Comparables/TP20

92C(2) of the Act. This ground is consequential to Ground no.1 and therefore, the same is also sent back to the file of the DRP, to be decided along with Ground no.1. 6. Ground No.4: In this ground, the assessee has challenged the action of DRP in confirming the action of AO in taxing an amount of Rs.5

CASTROL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 195/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.195/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Castrol India Limited The Deputy Commissioner बनाम/ Technopolis Knowledge Park Of Income Tax – Range V. Makali Caves Road, Chakala 8(3) Income Tax Office Andheri(East) Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai 400093 M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc4481E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N.K.Chandna, CIT-DR
Section 92C

92C(2) of the Act. Since, the genuineness of the payments is not in doubt and the receipt of services and benefits derived by Castrol India has itself not been challenged by the TPO/AO, the ALP relating to the same cannot be determined to be Nil and some value needs to be attributed. It would be unjust to the Appellant

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1916/MUM/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh SanghaviFor Respondent: 20/08/2024
Section 271GSection 92Section 92CSection 92D

capital in the markets, overall economic development and lev development and level of competition and whether the markets are el of competition and whether the markets are wholesale or retail. wholesale or retail. 18.1 Ant evaluation of Rule 10B(2) shows that the comparability valuation of Rule 10B(2) shows that the comparability valuation of Rule 10B(2) shows that

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

ITA 7166/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, Ms. Aastha &
Section 144CSection 35Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92F

92C(3) and Section 92F(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Hence, said adjustment is invalid and bad-in-law. (ii) Without prejudice to above, (i) Appellant submits that corporate guarantee given to bank for giving financial facility to AE which is (ultimate) subsidiary of the Appellant being beneficial to the Appellant (and as such

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

ITA 2069/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, Ms. Aastha &
Section 144CSection 35Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92F

92C(3) and Section 92F(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Hence, said adjustment is invalid and bad-in-law. (ii) Without prejudice to above, (i) Appellant submits that corporate guarantee given to bank for giving financial facility to AE which is (ultimate) subsidiary of the Appellant being beneficial to the Appellant (and as such

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

ITA 6560/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, Ms. Aastha &
Section 144CSection 35Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92F

92C(3) and Section 92F(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Hence, said adjustment is invalid and bad-in-law. (ii) Without prejudice to above, (i) Appellant submits that corporate guarantee given to bank for giving financial facility to AE which is (ultimate) subsidiary of the Appellant being beneficial to the Appellant (and as such

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

ITA 1745/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, Ms. Aastha &
Section 144CSection 35Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92F

92C(3) and Section 92F(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Hence, said adjustment is invalid and bad-in-law. (ii) Without prejudice to above, (i) Appellant submits that corporate guarantee given to bank for giving financial facility to AE which is (ultimate) subsidiary of the Appellant being beneficial to the Appellant (and as such

ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, additional ground No

ITA 1942/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 43BSection 92BSection 92C(2)

Section 92C(2) of the Act. 10. The DRP has erred in holding that the transaction of subscription of shares and their sale during the year is a sham transaction and thus directing that the entire short term capital loss of Rs. 183,06,38,227/- be disallowed, as a third alternative. 11. The AO has erred in adding

JSW ENERGY (BARMER) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical

ITA 3713/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR/For Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Kabra
Section 14A

Gain, without considering the facts and circumstances circumstances of the case. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Hon'ble Disputed Resolution penal has erred

CWT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-

ITA 1588/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Cwt India Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of Unit No. 2, Raheja Centre, Income Tax-9(2)(2), Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Free Press Journal Marg, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Pan : Aaaci7084H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani/For Respondent: Saurabh Deshpande /
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

capital gain by the Assessment Years: 2009-10 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 authorities below is contrary to the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid cases. Hence following the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts in the aforesaid case, we set-aside the findings of the AO based on the directions issued

SONATA SOFTWARE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE - 7(2) PRESENTLY ASSESSED WITH DCIT 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal by the Assessee appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 721/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon’Ble & Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 594/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit 8(2)(2), Mumbai……...........…...…………..….....................................................................Appellant Room No. 348, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Vs. M/S. Sonata Software Ltd……………….......…..…………………....….......................................Respondent 208, T.V. Industrial Estate, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400 030. [Pan: Aabcs 8459 D

Section 10A

capital base so as to expand its base so as to expand its information technology operations in USA by effectively projecting to information technology operations in USA by effectively projecting to information technology operations in USA by effectively projecting to US Market as an entity of United States and thereby gain confidence of Market as an entity of United States

DCIT 8(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SONATA SOFTWARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal by the Assessee appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 594/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon’Ble & Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 594/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit 8(2)(2), Mumbai……...........…...…………..….....................................................................Appellant Room No. 348, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Vs. M/S. Sonata Software Ltd……………….......…..…………………....….......................................Respondent 208, T.V. Industrial Estate, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400 030. [Pan: Aabcs 8459 D

Section 10A

capital base so as to expand its base so as to expand its information technology operations in USA by effectively projecting to information technology operations in USA by effectively projecting to information technology operations in USA by effectively projecting to US Market as an entity of United States and thereby gain confidence of Market as an entity of United States

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2588/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

capital gains on sale/compulsory acquisition of land amounting to Rs. 57,77,671/- as exempt from tax as p Section 96 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and settlement Act, 2013 and relying on CB circular No 36/2016 dated 15.10.2016. Short grant of foreign tax credit 10. Erred in confirming the action

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2318/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

capital gains on sale/compulsory acquisition of land amounting to Rs. 57,77,671/- as exempt from tax as p Section 96 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and settlement Act, 2013 and relying on CB circular No 36/2016 dated 15.10.2016. Short grant of foreign tax credit 10. Erred in confirming the action

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2317/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

capital gains on sale/compulsory acquisition of land amounting to Rs. 57,77,671/- as exempt from tax as p Section 96 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and settlement Act, 2013 and relying on CB circular No 36/2016 dated 15.10.2016. Short grant of foreign tax credit 10. Erred in confirming the action

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2587/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

capital gains on sale/compulsory acquisition of land amounting to Rs. 57,77,671/- as exempt from tax as p Section 96 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and settlement Act, 2013 and relying on CB circular No 36/2016 dated 15.10.2016. Short grant of foreign tax credit 10. Erred in confirming the action

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Porus Kaka / Tejas Mhatre
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D

Gains. 3.1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in making wrong references to section 47(iv), (v) and (vid) without M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that these sections have no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case and further that these

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1661/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Porus Kaka / Tejas Mhatre
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D

Gains. 3.1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in making wrong references to section 47(iv), (v) and (vid) without M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that these sections have no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case and further that these

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4459/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Porus Kaka / Tejas Mhatre
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D

Gains. 3.1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in making wrong references to section 47(iv), (v) and (vid) without M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that these sections have no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case and further that these