Section 92E of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.172

Section 92E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 172 (Report from an accountant to be furnished by persons entering into international transaction or specified domestic transaction) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 172 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 92E is PCIT v. Music Broadcast (P.) Ltd. (155 Taxmann.com 277), cited in 8 of the 132 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 92E

PCIT v. Music Broadcast (P.) Ltd.
155 Taxmann.com 277 · 2023 · High Court
8
citing judgments
Cadilla Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. ACIT
81 Taxmann.com 379 · 2017 · ITAT
7
citing judgments
Apar Industries Ltd. v. DCIT
117 Taxmann.com 970 · 2020 · Reported
5
citing judgments
Zee Enterprises Ltd. v. Addl. CIT
102 Taxmann.com 78 · 2019 · Reported
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 92E

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Venus Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd

TAXAP/204/2022HC Gujarat04 Apr 2022

Bench: 31/03/2012 As The Bu Permission Was Not Received For All The Blocks For Which The Deductions Was Page 1 Of 5

Section 80I

Taj Tv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 6588/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, Sr. AR
Section 250Section 90(2)Section 92E

Faith Intertrade, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(12), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2013-14 Faith Intertrade Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) 701, Shapth-1 Vs Ahmedabad. Sg Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aabff 2495 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Talera, Advocate Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 27.12.2018 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)-3/Ito Ward- 3(3)(12)/109/2017-18 Under Section 271Ba Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter Referred To “The Act”) Relating To The Assessment Year 2013-14, Whereby The Ld.Cit(A) Confirmed Action Of The Ao In Imposing Penalty Of Rs.1,00,000/- Under Section 271Ba Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Talera, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 92CSection 92E

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7087/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 7087/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, 5Th Floor, Mds, 9, Cgo Complex, Circle-1, Ltu Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0828R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. B. M. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.02.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. B. M. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271BSection 92E

Danfoss Power Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. CIT(A)- 38, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3547/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sanjay Garg(Through Video Conferencing) Danfoss Power Solutions Vs. Cit(A)-38 Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As New Delhi Sauer-Danfoss India Pvt. Ltd.), Gate No.94-100, High Cliff Industrial Estate, Wagholi Rahu Road, Village Kesnand, Pune-412 207 Pan : Aafcs 2954 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gokul Ramakrishnan, C.A. Revenue By Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 156Section 271JSection 274Section 92E

M/S. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, (OSD) Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1582/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1582/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Venus Infrastructure & D.C.I.T.,(Osd) Developers (P) Ltd., Vs. Central Circle-8, 801-802, Broadway Business Ahmedabad. Centre, Opp. Mayor’S Bungalow, Law Garden Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aahcs6254J

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, &For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT.D.R
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

Batronics India Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1192/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waseem-ur-Rehman, DR
Section 271BSection 92ASection 92BSection 92E

Smt. Anita Sunil Mahajan, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1859/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Anita Sunil Mahajan Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Kedriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik Ram Ganesh Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Amqpm9510P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By Shri Vitthal Bhosale Date Of Hearing 09-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 12-07-2021 आदेश / Order Per R.S.Syal, Vp: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) On 9.5.2017 Echoing The Penalty Of Rs.39,28,638 Imposed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 271Aa Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‗The Act‘) For Failure To Keep & Maintain Information As Required U/S 92D & Not Furnishing The Report U/S 92E Of The Act In Relation To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2 Smt. Anita Sunil Mahajan

Section 271ASection 40ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 44ASection 92BSection 92DSection 92E

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune vs. M/S. Stauff India Private Limited, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2391/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1171/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A.M. Krishnan
Section 92E

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Stauff India Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1357/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1171/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A.M. Krishnan
Section 92E

Stauff India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1171/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1171/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A.M. Krishnan
Section 92E

Transoceanic Financial Engineering P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1524/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar P. Menon
Section 271ASection 271BSection 92DSection 92E

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Micromax Informatics Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4632/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 132Section 144CSection 271ASection 92Section 92D

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 4951/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari (DR)
Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 271MSection 273BSection 274Section 92Section 920

Ashish Subodhchandra Shah (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-5, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 881/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 881/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92B

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 4950/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 92ASection 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92DSection 92E

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 4949/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 92ASection 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92DSection 92E

M/S. Skm-Umsl Jv, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.229/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014 - 2015) M/S Skm-Umsl Jv, Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), At-Imfa Building, Bomikhal, Bhubaneswar Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aajas 2542 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Jena, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 18.04.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015, On The Following Grounds :- A. For That The Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. Ao) Has Initiated Penalty Proceeding On The Behest Of Ld. Dcit (Tp)-Ii, Kolkata U/S.271Ba Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In The Assessment Order Dated29.12.2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act . The Impugned Order Of Imposing Penalty U/S.271Ba Of Act Has Been Passed On 25.06.2018 By The Ld. A.O Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity To The Appellant & Without Exercising His Discretion As Vested By The Statute. However Without Adjudicating The Appeal Despite The Fact That The Particular Provision Of Specified Domestic Transaction Has Been Omitted From Statute By The Finance Act, 2017 The Ld. Cit (A) Is Erred In Upholding The Penalty Order. Therefore Orders Of Forum Below Are Unsustainable & Impermissible Under Law.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Jena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 92CSection 92E

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon vs. M/S Comverse Network Systems India Pvt Ltd

The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms

ITA/547/2017HC Punjab & Haryana05 Feb 2020
Section 143(2)Section 92CSection 92E

Eleglance Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1292/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Eleglance Jewellery Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Ltd.,513, Gold Crest Business Vs. 9(1)(3), Aayakar Bhavan, Centre L.T. Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aabce9844J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sameer G. Dalal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ashish Heliwal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92E