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.

73 results for “disallowance”+ Section 92A(2)(i)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai73Delhi49Bangalore33Kolkata30Chennai17Pune16Hyderabad8Ahmedabad4Cochin2Jaipur2Karnataka2Telangana1Indore1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)47Transfer Pricing44Addition to Income38Section 92C34Disallowance34Comparables/TP21Deduction21Section 144C(5)16Section 8016Depreciation

ASST CIT 11(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VINCA DEVELOPERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed and

ITA 649/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhacit-11(3)(2), M/S Vinca Developers Pvt. Ltd. 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Room No. 427, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road No. 07, Marol Midc, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072 Pan:Aaccv8042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No. 33/Mum/2016 (Ita No. 649/Mum/16 (A.Y- 2011-12) M/S Vinca Developers Pvt. Ltd. Acit-11(3)(2), 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Room No. 427, Aayakar Road No. 07, Marol Midc, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072 Pan:Aaccv8042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. (Tp)A 1854/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) M/S Vinca Developers Pvt. Ltd. Acit-11(3)(2), 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Room No. 427, Aayakar Road No. 07, Marol Midc, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400072 Pan:Aaccv8042J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4

13
Section 4012
Section 14A12

92A(2) only supplements the primary definition of associated enterprises under sub-section (1). 1.4. The Hon'ble DRP erred on facts and in law by concurring with the learned AO / TPO's view that since the Appellant has complied with TP provisions in this year and earlier year, transfer pricing provisions are applicable without appreciating the fact that compliance

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.6 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2166/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Kaybee Private Limited Ito-10(1)(3) 301, ‘A’ Wing, Solaris-1, Room No. 25 B, Ground Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai (Erstwhile Pan: Aaack1715H Jurisdictional Ito-8(2)(2), Mumbai. Appellant Respondent M/S Kaybee Private Limited Ito-10(1)(3) 301, ‘A’ Wing, Solaris-1, Room No. 25 B, Ground Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai (Erstwhile Pan: Aaack1715H Jurisdictional Ito-8(2)(2), Mumbai. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Jayant Kumar With Shri V. Jenerdhanan (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2018

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar with Shri V. Jenerdhanan (CIT-DR)
Section 254(1)Section 37Section 92ASection 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)Section 92F

92A of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred, in fact and in law. in upholding the arm's length brokerage rate for yarn product at 2% as determined by Ld. AO as against 0.75% actually received by the appellant. (a) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating that the comparable instance of 2% brokerage rate

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7912/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nMr. Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: \nMr. Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 35Section 43BSection 80Section 91Section 92Section 92A(3)

92A(3) of the Act, in respect of\nadjustment on impugned arm's length interest on the preference\nshare capital of the Associated Enterprise, subscribed by the\nAppellant, by recharacterising preference shares as a loan.\n2. Disallowance u/s 14A :- Rs. 4,86,94,253/-\nThe learned Assessing Officer erred in computing the disallowance\nu/s 14A as per Rule 8D amounting

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 631/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate with Shri Nikhil Tiwari,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha, CIT-DR and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.AR
Section 116Section 143(3)Section 92C

disallowed assessee’s claim on the reasoning that FCCNs issued by the assessee are in the nature of convertible debentures, hence, expenditure related to issue of such debenture is capital in nature. However, it is observed that while deciding identical issue in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2005–06, in ITA no.3336/Mum /2011, dated 13th April

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 1634/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48

disallowance made on account of royalty paid to Wireless\nPlanning Commissioner (“WPC).\n73. The brief facts of the case, pertaining to this issue, as emanating from\nthe record, are: During the assessment proceedings, the assessee incurred\nan expenditure of Rs.97,57,68,959/- in respect of license fees payable to\nWPC, a wing of Department of Telecommunication towards

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 671/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48

disallowance made on account of royalty paid to Wireless\nPlanning Commissioner (“WPC\").\n73.\nThe brief facts of the case, pertaining to this issue, as emanating from\nthe record, are: During the assessment proceedings, the assessee incurred\nan expenditure of Rs.97,57,68,959/- in respect of license fees payable to\nWPC, a wing of Department of Telecommunication towards

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the

ITA 5143/MUM/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 254Section 80Section 801ASection 80A(6)

92A, 92B, 92C, 92D and 92E, unless the context otherwise requires,— ……… i) "arm's length price" means a price which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises, in uncontrolled CO Nos. 257 & 258 /Mum/2024 M/s. JSW Steel Coated Products Limited ii) conditions; 32. The definition of ALP, as reproduced above, speaks

DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4607/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii). Needless to say that the assessee be given a proper opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. ADDITION TOWARDS UNUTILISED MODVAT CREDIT – Ground No.3 15. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the value of closing stock should not be determined by including 10 Kansai

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3385/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii). Needless to say that the assessee be given a proper opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. ADDITION TOWARDS UNUTILISED MODVAT CREDIT – Ground No.3 15. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the value of closing stock should not be determined by including 10 Kansai

M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4562/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii). Needless to say that the assessee be given a proper opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. ADDITION TOWARDS UNUTILISED MODVAT CREDIT – Ground No.3 15. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the value of closing stock should not be determined by including 10 Kansai

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3384/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii). Needless to say that the assessee be given a proper opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. ADDITION TOWARDS UNUTILISED MODVAT CREDIT – Ground No.3 15. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the value of closing stock should not be determined by including 10 Kansai

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3642/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii). Needless to say that the assessee be given a proper opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. ADDITION TOWARDS UNUTILISED MODVAT CREDIT – Ground No.3 15. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the value of closing stock should not be determined by including 10 Kansai

DCIT-5(2)(1),MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, C.O. filed by assessee is\ndismissed as infructuous

ITA 5142/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 254Section 80Section 801ASection 80A(6)

92A, 92B, 92C, 92D and 92E, unless the context otherwise\nrequires,-\ni)\n\"arm's length price\" means a price which is applied or proposed to be applied in a\ntransaction between persons other than associated enterprises, in uncontrolled\nconditions;\nii) conditions;\n32. The definition of ALP, as reproduced above, speaks of two conditions. Firstly,\nthe transaction must be between

M/S. SP IMPERIAL STAR PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 3(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5862/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92Section 948Section 94B

Section 92A(2) of the Act, for which disallowance of interest payable/paid by the assessee is to be determined as per Section

COX & KINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1354/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri R.R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss, DR and Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92A(3)

92A(3) of the Act. TPO suggested adjustments to the tune of Rs. 2,80,20,501/- on accounts of interest adjustments, corporate guarantee adjustments and share premium adjustments. After making corporate disallowance / additions, the Assessing Officer determined the assessed income at Rs. 72,84,03,200/- against the return of income of Rs. 69.43 Crs (rounded of). AO considered

DAGA GLOBAL CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the Revenue are

ITA 5296/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Daga Global Chemicals D C I T - 12(2)(1) P. Ltd. Room No. 223/262 101, Mahek Plaza 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Off L.T. Road, Maharashtra M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Nagar Lane, Borivali (W) Mumbai 400092 Pan – Aaacd2233M Appellant Respondent D C I T - 12(2)(1) M/S. Daga Global Chemicals Room No. 223/262 P. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 101, Mahek Plaza Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Off L.T. Road, Maharashtra Nagar Lane, Borivali (W) Mumbai 400092 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92E

disallowed by the AO. 5. Before the learned CIT(A) the assessee made elaborate submission informing that the assessee has engaged in the business of trading in chemicals/petro products and allied products and export its products to Iran. During the year assessee has entered into a contract with DLS, Dubai, which is a company controlled by Shri Kriti Krishan Daga

DCIT 6(2), MUMBAI vs. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6789/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Dcit Circle -6(2) M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Addl. Cit Circle -6(2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri. Rignesh K. Das (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 145ASection 14A

disallowance having been made with respect to addition of Rs. 5,12,27,909 u/s 145A of the 1961 Act on account of differential Cenvat Credit in opening and closing stock. The assessee is following exclusive method of accounting while valuing stock while the Revenue is contending that only inclusive method of accounting can be adopted while valuing stock keeping

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7196/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Dcit Circle -6(2) M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Addl. Cit Circle -6(2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri. Rignesh K. Das (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 145ASection 14A

disallowance having been made with respect to addition of Rs. 5,12,27,909 u/s 145A of the 1961 Act on account of differential Cenvat Credit in opening and closing stock. The assessee is following exclusive method of accounting while valuing stock while the Revenue is contending that only inclusive method of accounting can be adopted while valuing stock keeping

SHILPA SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 13, MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 5433/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Singh-Ld. DR
Section 14ASection 92ASection 92CSection 92F

92A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). b. Appellant's profession was an 'enterprise' within the meaning of section 92F(iii) of the Act separate from the Appellant being an 'enterprise'. 3. The Appellant prays that the alleged 'international transaction' was not between AEs and therefore the addition be considered as bad in law and be deleted. WITHOUT

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1135/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

disallowance of ` 30,94,732/- made u/s 40(a) for non- deduction of tax at source u/s 195 of the Act, on the payment made a non-resident company is concerned, the argument of the ld. counsel is that a non-resident company is excluded from the definition of royalty, per clause (v) to Explanation-2 to section