← All Phrases

“international transaction”

Transfer PricingSection 92BSection 92B3,408 judgments

The decision most relied on for international transaction is Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (374 ITR 118), cited in 499 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on international transaction

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
374 ITR 118 · 2015 · High Court
499
citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction for Advertising and Marketing Promotion (AMP) expenditure requires the revenue to discharge the burden of proof. An explanation inserted under Section 92B does not automatically make AMP expenditure an international transaction.

CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.
345 ITR 241 · 2012 · High Court
422
citing judgments

Transfer pricing adjustments for outstanding receivables are permissible only if the Tax Officer establishes, through analysis over a period, a pattern indicating an international transaction intended to benefit an associated enterprise. The Tax Officer cannot question purely business decisions like royalty payments or exceed jurisdiction by applying cost-benefit analysis to determine the arm's length price of services.

India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India
341 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court
295
citing judgments

Legitimate tax planning is permissible, allowing taxpayers to arrange their affairs to minimize tax liabilities while respecting the "look at test" for transaction genuineness and the separate entity principle in corporate taxation. The source of funds for treaty-beneficial structures does not automatically invalidate the transaction.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT
381 ITR 117 · 2016 · High Court
220
citing judgments

The Bright Line Test (BLT) is not a recognized method under the Income-tax Act and Rules for benchmarking advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses or for determining the existence of an international transaction or its Arm's Length Price. The Revenue must first establish the existence and price of an international transaction before seeking an ALP adjustment.

Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
368 ITR 1 · 2014 · High Court
172
citing judgments

The issue of shares and share premium is a capital account transaction, not an income-generating event, therefore Chapter X (Transfer Pricing) provisions are not attracted to deem notional or hypothetical income from such transactions.

Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT
24 ITR 506 · 1953 · Supreme Court
156
citing judgments

One cannot make a taxable profit or loss from transactions with oneself, as profit only arises from dealings with external third parties, even when transferring assets between different accounts or divisions of the same entity.

PCIT v. Redington (India) Ltd.
430 ITR 298 · 2021 · High Court
132
citing judgments

A corporate guarantee issued to Associated Enterprises (AEs) is an international transaction under Section 92B, requiring adjustments for guarantee commission due to inherent risk. The reasonable arm's length rate for benchmarking such corporate guarantees can be determined using internal or external comparable uncontrolled prices.

Bausch & Lomb Eye Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional CIT
381 ITR 227 · 2016 · High Court
127
citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction must be established before its arm's length price can be determined. An alleged 'excessive' AMP expenditure cannot unilaterally expand the scope of an international transaction if its existence is contested.

Judgments citing international transaction

Oriental Consultants India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Range - 44, Delhi

ITA 5376/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5422/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Express Freight Consortium, C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept, Civic Centre,Pratyakshar Bhawan, Shayama Prasad Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaae8440R अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Prashant Meharchandani, Advocate & Ms. Kanika Jain, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5407/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 India Seah Precision Metal Prvate Limited, A-39, Sector-80, Phase-Ii, Noida,Uttarpradesh. Pan No.Aabch2680P बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1), C.R. Building, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate, Shri Utkarsa Kumar Gupta, Advocate & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5376/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Oriental Consultants India Private Limited, 10A-16, Ground Floor, Narain Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabco8528P बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Range-44, C.R. Building, Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Kashish Gupta, Ar, Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Ar & Shri Anil Kumar, Advocate 1

ITA Nos. 5422/D/24, 5407/24, 5376/D/24, 5342/D/24, 5371/D/24, 5340/D/24, 4407/D/24, 4337/D/24, 3907/D/24 89862/D/19 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH

Egencia Travel India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 8(1), Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 5371/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.5422/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Express Freight Consortium, C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept, Civic Centre, Pratyakshar Bhawan, Shayama Prasad Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaae8440R अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Prashant Meharchandani, Advocate & Ms. Kanika Jain, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.5407/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 India Seah Precision Metal Prvate Limited, A-39, Sector-80, Phase-Ii, Noida, Uttarpradesh. Pan No.Aabch2680P बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1), C.R. Building, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate, Shri Utkarsa Kumar Gupta, Advocate & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.5376/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Oriental Consultants India Private Limited, 10A-16, Ground Floor, Narain Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabco8528P बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Range-44, C.R. Building, Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Kashish Gupta, Ar, Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Ar & Shri Anil Kumar, Advocate 1

ITA Nos. 5422/D/24, 5407/24, 5376/D/24, 5342/D/24, 5371/D/24, 5340/D/24, 4407/D/24, 4337/D/24, 3907/D/24 89862/D/19 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH

Federal-Mogul Goetze India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

ITA 4407/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5422/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Express Freight Consortium, C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept, Civic Centre,Pratyakshar Bhawan, Shayama Prasad Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaae8440R अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Prashant Meharchandani, Advocate & Ms. Kanika Jain, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5407/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 India Seah Precision Metal Prvate Limited, A-39, Sector-80, Phase-Ii, Noida,Uttarpradesh. Pan No.Aabch2680P बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1), C.R. Building, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate, Shri Utkarsa Kumar Gupta, Advocate & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5376/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Oriental Consultants India Private Limited, 10A-16, Ground Floor, Narain Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabco8528P बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Range-44, C.R. Building, Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Kashish Gupta, Ar, Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Ar & Shri Anil Kumar, Advocate 1

ITA Nos. 5422/D/24, 5407/24, 5376/D/24, 5342/D/24, 5371/D/24, 5340/D/24, 4407/D/24, 4337/D/24, 3907/D/24 89862/D/19 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH

Boeing India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Circle-4(2), New Delhi

ITA 4337/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5422/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Express Freight Consortium, C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept, Civic Centre,Pratyakshar Bhawan, Shayama Prasad Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaae8440R अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Prashant Meharchandani, Advocate & Ms. Kanika Jain, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5407/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 India Seah Precision Metal Prvate Limited, A-39, Sector-80, Phase-Ii, Noida,Uttarpradesh. Pan No.Aabch2680P बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1), C.R. Building, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate, Shri Utkarsa Kumar Gupta, Advocate & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5376/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Oriental Consultants India Private Limited, 10A-16, Ground Floor, Narain Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabco8528P बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Range-44, C.R. Building, Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Kashish Gupta, Ar, Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Ar & Shri Anil Kumar, Advocate 1

ITA Nos. 5422/D/24, 5407/24, 5376/D/24, 5342/D/24, 5371/D/24, 5340/D/24, 4407/D/24, 4337/D/24, 3907/D/24 89862/D/19 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Dormakaba India Private Limited, Kancheepuram

ITA 3299/CHNY/2024[2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3299/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai. Dormakaba India Private Limited, Plot No.48/3, Mahindra World City, 8Th Avenue, Anjur Village, Paranur Anjur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District – 603 002. [Pan:Aaacd-3980-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Saddik Ahmed, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 30.09.2024, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 1(1), Chennai (In Short “Ao”) U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘The Act') For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Dated 01.03.2022. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Saddik Ahmed, J.C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 92B

expenses by the Id.CIT(A). 3. The facts of the case emanating from the records are that initially when the assessment was completed the international transactions has been referred to transfer pricing officer for determination of Arms Length Price (ALP). The then Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) seem to have made ... carried out, then AMP expenses cannot be segregated for independent TP study. Further, Id.CIT(A) also held that AMP expense does not constitute an international transaction as per section 92B of the Act. 6. The Ld.DR relied on the TP order and contended that by incurring higher expenses