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 “disallowance”+ Section 92Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai697Delhi576Bangalore313Pune191Kolkata143Ahmedabad107Chennai69Hyderabad55Indore15Visakhapatnam11Jaipur11Karnataka7Cochin6Surat5Raipur3Jodhpur2Amritsar2Guwahati2Calcutta2Panaji2Jabalpur1Nagpur1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)20Section 92C16Transfer Pricing10Section 2639Addition to Income9Section 10A8Section 406Disallowance6Comparables/TP4Section 271A

THE DY. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. SNF (INDIA) LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 279/VIZ/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Oct 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain – ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR

Section 92C(1) of the Act to determine the ALP before disallowing the payment of Rs.200.82 lakhs incurred by the Respondent

THE DY. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. SNF (INDIA) LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 280/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Oct 2019AY 2008-2009

Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

3
Section 144C(1)3
Revision u/s 2633
Bench:
For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain – ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR

Section 92C(1) of the Act to determine the ALP before disallowing the payment of Rs.200.82 lakhs incurred by the Respondent

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1(1),, GUNTUR vs. CCL PRODUCTS(INDIA) LIMITED, DUGGIRALA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 433/VIZ/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramesh Babu, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

disallowance of notional interest on delayed payments and accordingly, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition. The appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed. 7.2 The facts of the assessee‟s case are similar. In the instant case also it is established that the transactions with the AEs are at arms length

MAHATI SOFTWARE PVT LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 67/VIZ/2016[20011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Sept 2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.67/Viz/2016 & 68/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Mahati Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.10-27-14A Income Tax Sivam, Kailashmetta Circle-3(1) Waltair Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadcm9620J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 194JSection 40

section 92C of the Act. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd., 330 ITR 0175 and argued that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 10A on enhanced profits due to additions made by the AO on domestic transactions. 22. On the other hand, the Ld.DR

M/S. MAHATI SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 68/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.67/Viz/2016 & 68/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Mahati Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.10-27-14A Income Tax Sivam, Kailashmetta Circle-3(1) Waltair Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadcm9620J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 194JSection 40

section 92C of the Act. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd., 330 ITR 0175 and argued that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 10A on enhanced profits due to additions made by the AO on domestic transactions. 22. On the other hand, the Ld.DR

TEEJAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

ITA 340/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.340/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) & S.A. No. 15/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Teejay India Private Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 15, Brandix, Apsez, Income Tax, Pudimadaka Road, Atchutapuram Circle-5(1), Mandal, Visakhapatnam-530011. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaaco9452H (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

section 92C(1) of the Act and not bringing on record any comparables uncontrolled transactions. Grounds for disallowance of use of Reserve

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-1(1),, GUNTUR vs. M/S CCL PRODUCTS(INDIA) LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 348/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.348/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2014-15) Dcit, Circle-1(1) Vs. M/S Ccl Products (India) Guntur Pvt. Ltd. Duggirala Post & Mandal Guntur [Pan : Aaacc9552G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri Ramesh Babu, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03 .04.2019

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Babu, AR
Section 92BSection 92C

Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer pricing - Computation of arm's length price (Comparables and Adjustments/Adjustments - Interest) - Assessment year 2011-12 - TPO noted that there was delay in receipt of payment from AE and observed that estimate period of 30 days would be considered as normal period for inter-company sales and services and any delay beyond

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA) LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 98/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.97/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Tax, Guntur-522330, Guntur-522004. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaacc9552G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 92C

section 92C, the difference to the extent of 3% is permissible. We further find that the assessee by submitting all the details explained before the TPO that the assessee has charged for AE as well as non-AE similar prices for the supply of instant Page No. 15 ITA NO. 97, 98 & 152/Viz/2025 DCIT VS. CCL PRODUCTS INDIA LIMITED coffee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA) LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/VIZ/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.97/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Tax, Guntur-522330, Guntur-522004. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaacc9552G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 92C

section 92C, the difference to the extent of 3% is permissible. We further find that the assessee by submitting all the details explained before the TPO that the assessee has charged for AE as well as non-AE similar prices for the supply of instant Page No. 15 ITA NO. 97, 98 & 152/Viz/2025 DCIT VS. CCL PRODUCTS INDIA LIMITED coffee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA) LIMITED, DUGGIRALA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.97/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Tax, Guntur-522330, Guntur-522004. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaacc9552G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 92C

section 92C, the difference to the extent of 3% is permissible. We further find that the assessee by submitting all the details explained before the TPO that the assessee has charged for AE as well as non-AE similar prices for the supply of instant Page No. 15 ITA NO. 97, 98 & 152/Viz/2025 DCIT VS. CCL PRODUCTS INDIA LIMITED coffee

TEEJAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 533/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

disallowance of the royalty paid by the assessee-company for technical support services of Rs. 20,72,84,822/-, the Ld.AR submitted that the AO/TPO, while making the aforesaid addition, had erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis furnished by the assessee and determined the ALP of the said International Transaction at Nil. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld.AR submitted that