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.

10 results for “capital gains”+ Section 92Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi62Mumbai48Bangalore47Kolkata19Ahmedabad17Chennai16Pune10Hyderabad7Jaipur5Guwahati3Indore2Karnataka1Jabalpur1Chandigarh1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 270A15Section 10A14Section 10A(7)8Addition to Income7Comparables/TP7Section 92D6Penalty5Transfer Pricing5Section 270A(9)4Section 143(3)

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Nikhil Mutha
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(9)

92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. 12. It was also pointed that as per section 270A(7) of the Act, the penalty under sub-section (1) of Section 270A shall be a sum equal

4
Section 92C(3)4
Survey u/s 133A4

M/S. HONEWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 583/PUN/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Mar 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 251(2)

gains of an eligible business cannot be tinkered with by the Assessing Officer merely because they are more than the ordinary profits or that they are quite high. The existence of substantial or more than ordinary profits by itself does not sufficiently empower the Assessing Officer to disregard them and determine the profits which he may consider to be reasonably

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 619/PUN/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Mar 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 251(2)

gains of an eligible business cannot be tinkered with by the Assessing Officer merely because they are more than the ordinary profits or that they are quite high. The existence of substantial or more than ordinary profits by itself does not sufficiently empower the Assessing Officer to disregard them and determine the profits which he may consider to be reasonably

RENISHAW METROLOGY SYSTEMS LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 619/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.619/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Renishaw Metrology Systems The Dy.Commissioner Limited, V Of Income Tax, Circle- S.No.283, Hissa No.2, S.No.284, S 5, Pune. Hissa No.2 & 3A, Raisoni Estate, Taluk – Mulshi, Dist-Pune. Pan: Aabcr6361F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajit Jain & Shri Siddesh Chaugule – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2024

Section 194ASection 271Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

Section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’); 2.2 applying inappropriate filters and cherry-picking companies earning high margins to arrive at a fresh set of companies as comparables to the Appellant; 2.3 rejecting certain comparable companies which are comparable to the Appellant; 2.4 selecting companies as comparable which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1940/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (8) Notwithstanding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1939/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (8) Notwithstanding

M/S. SCHLUMBERGER INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 640/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.640/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11 M/S. Schlumberger India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Schlumberger Global Support Centre Ltd.-India Branch) Office No.701, 7Th Floor, Building No.9, Commerzone, Survey No.144/145, Samrat Ashok Path, Off Airport Road, Yerwada अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411006 …. Pan: Aalcs2048C Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax (It)-Ii, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune

For Appellant: Shri Kamal SawhneyFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') and thereby rejecting the transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant. 3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned AO erred in and the Honourable DRP has further erred in confirming the action

M/S VODAFONE GLOBAL SERVICES P LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1),, PUNE

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

ITA 660/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.660/Pun/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 156Section 270Section 92C(2)Section 92D

92D of the Act. 3. Rejecting comparable companies functionally comparable to the Appellant and including comparable companies functionally not comparable to the Appellant. 4. Cherry picking high margin companies and rejecting low margin companies by applying arbitrary filters to arrive at a revised set of comparable companies. 5. Erroneously computing the operating margins of the companies selected as comparable

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. SCHLUMBERGER GLOBAL SUPPORT CENTRE LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and appeal of assessee is disposed of as indicated above

ITA 1264/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1264/Pun/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Director Of Income Tax अऩीऱाथी / Appellant (International Taxation), Circle-2, Pune. … बिाम / V/S. M/S. Schlumberger India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Schlumberger Global Support Centre Ltd.-India Branch) Office No. 701, 7Th Floor, Bldg. No. 9, Commerzone, Survey No.144/145, Samrat Ashok Path, Off Air Port Road, Yerwada, … प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune-411 006. Pan :Aalcs2048C आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1280/Pun/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Schlumberger India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Schlumberger Global Support Centre Ltd.-India Branch) Office No. 701, 7Th Floor, Bldg. No. 9, Commerzone, Survey No. 144/145, Samrat Ashok Path, Off Air Port Road, Yerwada, अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Pune-411 006. … Pan :Aalcs2048C बिाम / V/S. The Joint Director Of Income Tax, … प्रत्यथी / Respondent (International Taxation), Pune. A.Y. 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Sawhney & Shri Sujit Thakar
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') and thereby rejecting the transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO erred in and the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in confirming the action

M/S. SCHLUMBERGER INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and appeal of assessee is disposed of as indicated above

ITA 1280/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1264/Pun/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Director Of Income Tax अऩीऱाथी / Appellant (International Taxation), Circle-2, Pune. … बिाम / V/S. M/S. Schlumberger India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Schlumberger Global Support Centre Ltd.-India Branch) Office No. 701, 7Th Floor, Bldg. No. 9, Commerzone, Survey No.144/145, Samrat Ashok Path, Off Air Port Road, Yerwada, … प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune-411 006. Pan :Aalcs2048C आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1280/Pun/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Schlumberger India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Schlumberger Global Support Centre Ltd.-India Branch) Office No. 701, 7Th Floor, Bldg. No. 9, Commerzone, Survey No. 144/145, Samrat Ashok Path, Off Air Port Road, Yerwada, अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Pune-411 006. … Pan :Aalcs2048C बिाम / V/S. The Joint Director Of Income Tax, … प्रत्यथी / Respondent (International Taxation), Pune. A.Y. 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Sawhney & Shri Sujit Thakar
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') and thereby rejecting the transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO erred in and the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in confirming the action