Section 92A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.162

Section 92A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 162 (Meaning of associated enterprise) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 162 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

117 judgments on BharatTax turn on Section 92A.

Judgments on Section 92A

Kairos Properties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT WD 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing

ITA 6760/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Ms. Ratna Dasgupta

For Appellant: AAGCK5022K
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92ASection 94B

Mobitech Creations Private Limited, South East Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 1005/DEL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Chawla, SR. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 92ASection 92BSection 92C

Lama Rice Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 13 (1), Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITTPA 66/DEL/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarit(Tp)A. No.66 /Del/2026 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Lama Rice Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 13 (1), 1002, Pearl Business Park, Deli. Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Saraswati Vihar, Shakur Pur I, Delhi – 110 034. (Pan :Aabcl6803C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Ca Revenue By : Shri Bhopal Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2026 O R D E R Per S.Rifaurrahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 08.01.2026 Passed By The Income Tax Department/Dcit, Circle 13 (1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C (13)/144Bof The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2022-23 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C (5) Of The Act Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 92C

Sas Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 6672/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Hon’Ble & Shri Jagadish, Hon’Ble

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 254Section 92

Sas Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 6671/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Hon’Ble & Shri Jagadish, Hon’Ble

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 254Section 92

Freyr Software Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITTPA 345/HYD/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Aug 2026AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92A(2)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Imperial Jewels, Mumbai vs. DCIT-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 5941/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Beena Pillai & Hon’Ble Jagadish

Section 10ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 92ASection 92B

ACIT 23(1), Mumbai vs. D A Jhaveri, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 dismissed

ITA 2207/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal & (Physical Hearing) Acit 23(1), Mumbai D. A. Jhaveri 511, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaugh, Vs C-Tower, Cc5073, Central Wings, Parel, Mumbai, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bkc, Maharashtra - 400012 Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400051 [Pan: Aaafd0295J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271GSection 92DSection 92D(3)

ACIT 23(1), Mumbai vs. D A Jhaveri, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 dismissed

ITA 2206/MUM/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal & (Physical Hearing) Acit 23(1), Mumbai D. A. Jhaveri 511, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaugh, Vs C-Tower, Cc5073, Central Wings, Parel, Mumbai, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bkc, Maharashtra - 400012 Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400051 [Pan: Aaafd0295J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271GSection 92DSection 92D(3)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation, Circle-2(1) Bengaluru, Bengaluru vs. Palmer Investment Group Limited, Virgin Islands

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

ITA 2431/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271CSection 274Section 275

Tata Chemicals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7912/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 35Section 43BSection 80Section 91Section 92Section 92A(3)

Par Formulations Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1009/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1009/Chny/2017 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92A

Maersk Tankers India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 8376/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 92BSection 92B(2)Section 92C

Himalaya Wellness Company, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result ground No. 9 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITTPA 2225/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CA
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 92A(2)Section 92C

M/S.Joy Alukkas India P. Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 38/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 92C

M/S.Joy Alukkas India P. Ltd, Trichur vs. The ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 119/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 92C

Jubilant Foodworks Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle, 5(1)(1)., Gautam Buddha Nager

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

ITA 2310/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 924ASection 928Section 92CSection 92F

Inlogic Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp. Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3323/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 3323/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153

DCIT., Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Jodas Expoim Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 702/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.702/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dy. C.I.T Vs. M/S. Jodas Expoim (P) Ltd Central Circle 3(2) Siddipet, Telangana Hyderabad Pan:Aabcj8653L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 7/5/2024 Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aa Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2016-17. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271Aa Of The Act Even Though The Assessee Failed To File Form 3Ceb As Mandated U/S 92E Of The Act Within The Time Prescribed U/S 139(1) Of The Act? 2) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271Aa Of The Act Even Though The Assessee Failed To Report

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 115JSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 233ASection 271ASection 92ASection 92CSection 92DSection 92E

Bock Compressors India Private, Bengaluru vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle - 1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1484/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ves, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Uday Kakne, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144(5)Section 144CSection 234BSection 253Section 270ASection 920Section 92ASection 92C