What is the leading case on Section 92CD of the Income Tax Act?

Approva Systems (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle-1, Pune (92 Taxmann.com 82) is the decision most relied on for Section 92CD, cited in 7 judgments.

Which cases are most cited on Section 92CD?

Approva Systems (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle-1, Pune (92 Taxmann.com 82) — 7 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 92CD?

BharatTax indexes 43 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 92CD of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 92CD of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.169

Section 92CD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 169 (Effect to advance pricing agreement) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 169 of the 2025 Act

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

The decision most relied on for Section 92CD is Approva Systems (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle-1, Pune (92 Taxmann.com 82), cited in 7 of the 43 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 92CD

Approva Systems (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle-1, Pune

92 Taxmann.com 82 · 2018 · Reported

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 92CD

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Eygbs (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the AO is dismissed

ITA 1586/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C(4)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Eygbs (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1368/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.Chavali Narayan & Sri.Keerthinarayan, ARs

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(4)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Eygbs (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1367/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.Chavali Narayan & Sri.Keerthinarayan, ARs

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(4)

Deutsche India Pvt. Ltd.(Earlier Known As 'Dboi Global Services Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for 16

ITA 2522/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92D

Target Corporation India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1613/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR)

Section 92C

Ericsson India Global Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Spl. Range 3, New Delhi

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

ITA 2368/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 234BSection 90Section 92C

Levi Strauss (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 10(c) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 223/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt.Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 288ASection 37Section 92C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Eygbs India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2984/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri G Manjunathaassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora, Sr. Counsel

Section 10ASection 2(24)Section 92Section 92CSection 92C(4)

M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 725/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate along with Ajay Roti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V Arvind, Advocate

Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

M/S Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 879/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

Mitsui & Co. India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1672/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P.Kantdy. Cit, Circle-16(2), M/S. Mitsui & Company India New Delhi Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Plot No.D-1, 4Th Floor, Salcon Ras Vilas, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aadcm 4488J (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Mitsui & Company Dcit, Circle-16(2), India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi Plot No.D-1, 4Th Floor, Vs. Salcon Ras Vilas, District Centre Saket, New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aadcm 4488J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C(2)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mitsui & Company India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1608/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C(2)

Dar A1 Handasah Consultants (Shir & Partners) India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1 (2), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1414/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri R.G. Agiwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Deoraj Shegaonkar, DCIT

Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(4)

M/S. Bobst India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as

ITA 1325/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2922/Pun/2016, 1451/Pun/2017 & 1325/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 92C

M/S. Bobst India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as

ITA 1451/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 92C

M/S. Bobst India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as

ITA 2922/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 92C

M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 11, Pune

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

ITA 171/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.171/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Acit, Circle-11, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kamal Sawhney & Ms. Rhea Amar Revenue By : Ms. Amrita Mishra सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Referring To The Grounds Before Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Grounds No.1, 14, 15 & 17 To 19 Are Required To Be Dismissed As They Are Of Either Consequential Or Premature Or General In Nature. Accordingly, They Are Dismissed. Therefore, The Rest Of Grounds No.2 To 13 & 16 Are Extracted Hereunder :-

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney &For Respondent: Ms. Amrita Mishra

Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 80ISection 92C

Mentor Graphics (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 399/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Laliet Kumarita No. 399/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Mentor Graphics (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, B-92, 9Th Floor, Himalaya House, Circle-16(2), 23, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcm5494Q Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Sh. Bhuwan Dhoopar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Meeta Sinha, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2015 Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer - 11(2), New Delhi ('Ld. Tpo') & The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax - Circle 16(2) ('Ld. Ao') Erred In Determining & The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'Ble Drp') Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 197,790,802 To The Value Of International Transactions Pertaining To Provision Of Software Development Support Services By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprises ('Aes') Under Section 92Ca(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act').

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Meeta Sinha, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Mr. Daikin Air-Conditioning Indai Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 161/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 144C(11)Section 192Section 234BSection 37(1)Section 40Section 92C

Spender Stuart (I) O, Ktd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 7117/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

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