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.

255 results for “capital gains”+ Section 92C(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai255Bangalore216Delhi211Ahmedabad62Kolkata61Chennai32Pune29Hyderabad22Indore11Surat5Guwahati5Jaipur5Cochin4Visakhapatnam3Panaji1Karnataka1Jabalpur1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 14A70Transfer Pricing65Addition to Income58Section 143(3)53Disallowance49Deduction35Section 92C34Depreciation26Section 115J19Section 32(1)

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

2 : To follow applicable portion in decision in paragraph 6 of appellate order for A.Y. 2012-13 dated 5.9.2018. The ground is partly allowed. D. Ground No. 3 : To follow same directions as in paragraph 8 of appellate order for A.Y. 2013-14. E. Ground No. 4 : It is allowed. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition

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

Showing 1–20 of 255 · Page 1 of 13

...
18
Section 144C(5)18
Section 80I18
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPE INDIA FILMS HOLDING LLC,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (INTL TAX) -4(2) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result ground no-2 raised by the assessee- is fully allowed

ITA 457/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalspe India Films Holding Llc C/O, Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp One International Centre, Tower No.3, 27Th Floor-32Nd Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aaocs1827L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit (International Taxation)-4(2)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Narimaon Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. P.J. Pardiwala/Paras Savla Respondent By : Sh. A.K. Keshari Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Drp’] Dated 06.01.2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant, Objects To The Order Dated 19 January 2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Sh. P.j. Pardiwala/Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Keshari
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

2-For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would be the income of the recipient chargeable under the head "Capital gains") for- (v) The transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in transfer of any copyright, literary, artistic or scientific work including films

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

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

92C(2) on the basis of such material and information available with him. Accordingly, the TPO proposed changes in the working of arm’s length price in respect of assessee’s international transaction of provision of customer support, data Assessment Years: 2009-10 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 updation and travel related services. The Ld. DR further submitted that

TOPSGRUP ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2115/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amit Shuklam/S. Topsgrup Electronic Systems Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3) Ltd. (Previsously Tops Sequipment Ltd.) Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 5, Royal Palms Golf & Country Club Vs. Mumbai 400020 Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400065 Pan - Aaact3291K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.M. LalaFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Shah
Section 143(3)Section 92C

gains’ iii) That the entire transaction was a manipulation and not bonafide. The learned DR contended that the investment in the shares of Tops BV was a bundled transaction actually consisting of two parts - 23 M/s. Topsgrup Electronic Systems Ltd. investment in share capital (including premium) and a loan. In this context, the learned D.R. submitting that the re-characterization

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1606/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

capital gain to the extent of Rs.3,24,40,774/- He ought not to have done so. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the curtailment of deduction section 80HHC to the following extent: (a) 90% of the following receipts were covered under Explanation

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

capital gain to the extent of Rs.3,24,40,774/- He ought not to have done so. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the curtailment of deduction section 80HHC to the following extent: (a) 90% of the following receipts were covered under Explanation

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

2. 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 Resolu law, the Hon'ble Disputed Resolution penal has erred in tion penal has erred in confirming

DEPUTY CIT-5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 821/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 821/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Essar Shipping Dy. Cit-Circle – 5(3)(1), Limited R. No. 568, Aayakar बिधम/ Essar House, 11, K K Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aacce3707D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Prakash R. Mane, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Patwari/ Shri Rishav Patwari, Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Impugned Order Dated 28.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-56, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash R. ManeFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Patwari/ Shri
Section 115VSection 143(3)Section 28Section 43Section 92Section 92F

92C prescribes methods for computation of arm's length price. None of the methods prescribed can have any application to computation of the tonnage income. In these circumstances, the computation provisions of Chapter X of the Act would fail and therefore, application of Chapter X of the Act in such circumstances has to fail. Tonnage tax provisions determine the entire

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

2 (1) (1), Mumbai (The Learned TPO) dated 7/1/ 2015 under section 92CA (3) of The Income Tax Act and the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel [ The ld DRP] dated 9/12/2015. 03. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal “Ground No. A: Transfer Pricing Adjustments – ₹ 26,78,899/- ITA Nos. 1745/MUM/2016, 2069 & 7166/MUM/2017, 6560/MUM2018 Graves Cotton

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

2 (1) (1), Mumbai (The Learned TPO) dated 7/1/ 2015 under section 92CA (3) of The Income Tax Act and the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel [ The ld DRP] dated 9/12/2015. 03. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal “Ground No. A: Transfer Pricing Adjustments – ₹ 26,78,899/- ITA Nos. 1745/MUM/2016, 2069 & 7166/MUM/2017, 6560/MUM2018 Graves Cotton

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

2 (1) (1), Mumbai (The Learned TPO) dated 7/1/ 2015 under section 92CA (3) of The Income Tax Act and the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel [ The ld DRP] dated 9/12/2015. 03. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal “Ground No. A: Transfer Pricing Adjustments – ₹ 26,78,899/- ITA Nos. 1745/MUM/2016, 2069 & 7166/MUM/2017, 6560/MUM2018 Graves Cotton