What is the leading case on Section 92D(3) of the Income Tax Act?

Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-5(1)(1) v. Ankit Gems (P.) Ltd Mumbai (106 Taxmann.com 243) is the decision most relied on for Section 92D(3), cited in 9 judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 92D(3)?

BharatTax indexes 27 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 92D(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 92D(3) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.171

Section 92D(3) falls under section 92D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 171 (Maintenance, keeping and furnishing of information and document by certain persons) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 171 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 92D(3) is Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-5(1)(1) v. Ankit Gems (P.) Ltd Mumbai (106 Taxmann.com 243), cited in 9 of the 27 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 92D(3)

Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-5(1)(1) v. Ankit Gems (P.) Ltd Mumbai

106 Taxmann.com 243 · 2019 · Reported

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 92D(3)

Brainbees Solutions Limited, Pune, Maharashtra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Pune

ITTPA 1431/PUN/2026[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Tp)A No.1431/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ankit GattaniFor Respondent: Smt. Sudha Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D(3)

DCIT-5(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan vs. Interjewel Pvt Ltd, Opera House

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2332/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of V/S. Interjewel Private Limited, 1508, Prasad Income Tax, Ward – 5(2)(1), बनाम Chambers, Opera House, Room No. 571, 5Th Floor, Mumbai, –400004, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Maharashtra Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccd5877B .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (Sr. DR)

Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D(3)

Claritrics India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITTPA 84/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A No.84/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S. Claritrics India Private Limited, Dcit बनाम 46/50, Indira Nagar Main Road, Corporate Circle (1), Opposite To Ann Hospital, Chennai. / Vs. Valasaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aahcc-6213-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Cit) -Ld. Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle (1), Chennai Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘’The Act’) Vide Order Dated 13.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 14.03.2022 Declaring Total Income Of ₹.1,78,580/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) (A) Of The Act On 24.08.2022 Determining Total Income At ₹.3,48,380/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny To Verify The Issue Of Large Value Of International Transactions In Services Including Transactions Under Section 92B(2) (Having Transfer Pricing Risk Parameters). Accordingly, A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1) Of The Act In The Case

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan (CIT) -Ld. Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271GSection 92B(2)Section 92CSection 92D(3)

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

In the result, this ground of assessee is dismissed

ITTPA 1334/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(Tp)A No.1334/Bang/2024 Assessmentyear:2020-21 Lumen It India Private Limited Salarapuria Touchstone 4Thflr Sy.No.15/1A & 14P7 Kadbeesanahalli Dcit Vs. Varthur Hobli Circle-4(1)(1) Bangalore 560 103 Bangalore

For Appellant: Sri Padma Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 230Section 232Section 244A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (It)-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Siemens, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3109/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhaildeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (It)-4(2)(1), Scindia House, Balard Pier, N.M. Road, Mumbai – 400038 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S M/S. Siemens Aktiengensellschaft, C/O, Bsr & Co. Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor, Apollo Mills Compound, M.N. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400038, Maharashtra Pan – Aabcs8516K

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D

DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 320/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

Assotech Moonshine Urbandevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3232/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumara.Yr. : 2018-19 Assotech Moonshine Urban Developers Vs. Dcit, Circle 1(1), Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 105, First Floor, Supreme Enclave Society, Pankaj Tower, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi – 110 091 (Pan: Aaecm8184A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271GSection 92D

Twentieth Century Fox Telecommunications International, Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation)-4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2914/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Section 271GSection 274Section 92CSection 92D(3)

Totalenergies Marketing Services, France, Mumbai vs. DCIT, (Tp)-4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2550/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Dhivya Ruth J. Sr. DR

Section 250Section 271GSection 274ASection 92CSection 92D(3)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Laxmi Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2325/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassistant Commissioner Of Vs Laxmi Diamond Private Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), Ew-200, G Block Bharat Diamond 903, Prathistha Bhavan, Old Course, Bandra Kurla Complex, Cgo Complex, M.K. Road, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 Churchgate (E), Mumbai-400020 Pan-Aabcl1815G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.A. VaidyalinganFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane(CIT - DR)

Section 250Section 271GSection 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92D(3)

Excel Biolife Private Limited, Malad East, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Tpo-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2015-2016

Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D

DCIT (It) -4(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Techware Singapre Holdings Pte. Ltd, Singapore

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

ITA 1930/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1930/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit(It) –4(1) (2) M/S Techware Singapre Mumbai Holdings Pte. Ltd. Room No.1609, 16Th Floor, C/O Delotte Haskins 7 Air India Bldg, Nariman Sells Llp C.A’S India बिधम/ Point, Maharashtra, Bulls Finance Centre, Vs. 400021 Tower-3 ,32Nd Floor Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road(West), Mumbai Maharashtra,-400013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aafct5409E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Shri Manoj Sinha, Sr.Ar अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 28.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 03/03/2022, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-68, Mumbai In Relation To Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271G For The Ay 2016 - 17. 2

For Respondent: None

Section 271GSection 5Section 92CSection 92D(3)Section 92E

The DCIT Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemical Ltd(Formerly As M/S.Dishman Carbogen Amcis Ltd), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1451/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Soparkar, AR & Parin Shah, AR

Section 115JSection 271GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92D(3)

Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)-1, Mumbai

In the result assessee's appeals stand allowed

ITA 1105/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Section 271GSection 273BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92DSection 92D(3)

Procter & Gamble Home Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1097/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1095/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1096/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1097/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Pavankumar Beerila,DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 271GSection 273BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92DSection 92D(3)

Procter & Gamble Home Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1096/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Pavankumar Beerila,DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 271GSection 273BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92DSection 92D(3)

ACIT-19)(1), Mumbai vs. Dauji & Co, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 2713/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2713/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-19(1) बिधम/ M/S. Dauji & Co. Room No.203, 2Nd Floor, Dw-6160, 6Th Floor, Bharat Vs. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Diamond Bourse, Bandra Mumbai-400007. (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafd0646F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri R. Sindhu (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 04.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -55, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Sindhu (Sr. AR)

Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D(3)