← 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

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee are allowed

ITA 8700/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit E-9, Connaught Hose, Circle – 2(2), Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi - 110001 Pan No. Aaaca 0364 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Taran Deep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Surender Pal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.09.2019 Of The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act Pursuant To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) – 1, Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92F

scrutiny and first notice u/s 143(2) dated 30.09.2016 was issued and served on the assessee. It was noticed that assessee had undertaken international transactions amounting to Rs.152 crore with Associated Enterprises (AE) and thereafter in accordance with the provision of Section 92CA of the I.T. Act, the international transaction ... development of marketing intangible for the benefit of AE. (ii) AMP expenditure of Rs.11,91,66,450/- incurred by the assessee is an “International Transaction” u/s 92B of the Act. (iii) Expenditure of Rs.10,99,36,525/- incurred by the assessee on payment of incentives to subscribers

DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi vs. Honeywell International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is partly allowed

ITA 5801/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Addl Cit (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Range-4, Unitech Trade Centre, New Delhi Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl Cit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Special Range-4, International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Circle-11(1), International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Dcit, (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Unitech Circle-11(1), Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block New Delhi C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deeraj Kr. Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 10ASection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO and Ld. TPO, of disregarding prior years' data used by the Appellant to benchmark its international transactions, in its TP Documentation for the year and holding that current year (i.e. FY 2010- 11) data for comparable companies should -be used despite ... Assessee filed its return of income on 11.10.2010 declaring income of Rs. 26,18,68,287/-. During the year, the assessee has undertaken international transaction of provision of market support services of Rs. 20.54 crores. It has entered into 9 other international transactions. The assessee has adopted transactional net margin

Honeywell International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is partly allowed

ITA 5770/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Addl Cit (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Range-4, Unitech Trade Centre, New Delhi Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl Cit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Special Range-4, International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Circle-11(1), International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Dcit, (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Unitech Circle-11(1), Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block New Delhi C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deeraj Kr. Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 10ASection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO and Ld. TPO, of disregarding prior years' data used by the Appellant to benchmark its international transactions, in its TP Documentation for the year and holding that current year (i.e. FY 2010- 11) data for comparable companies should -be used despite ... Assessee filed its return of income on 11.10.2010 declaring income of Rs. 26,18,68,287/-. During the year, the assessee has undertaken international transaction of provision of market support services of Rs. 20.54 crores. It has entered into 9 other international transactions. The assessee has adopted transactional net margin

M/S. Honeywell International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT (Inv.), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is partly allowed

ITA 6558/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Addl Cit (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Range-4, Unitech Trade Centre, New Delhi Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl Cit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Special Range-4, International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Circle-11(1), International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Dcit, (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Unitech Circle-11(1), Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block New Delhi C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deeraj Kr. Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 10ASection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO and Ld. TPO, of disregarding prior years' data used by the Appellant to benchmark its international transactions, in its TP Documentation for the year and holding that current year (i.e. FY 2010- 11) data for comparable companies should -be used despite ... Assessee filed its return of income on 11.10.2010 declaring income of Rs. 26,18,68,287/-. During the year, the assessee has undertaken international transaction of provision of market support services of Rs. 20.54 crores. It has entered into 9 other international transactions. The assessee has adopted transactional net margin

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Honeywell International (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is partly allowed

ITA 6552/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Addl Cit (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Range-4, Unitech Trade Centre, New Delhi Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl Cit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Special Range-4, International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Circle-11(1), International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Dcit, (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Unitech Circle-11(1), Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block New Delhi C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deeraj Kr. Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 10ASection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO and Ld. TPO, of disregarding prior years' data used by the Appellant to benchmark its international transactions, in its TP Documentation for the year and holding that current year (i.e. FY 2010- 11) data for comparable companies should -be used despite ... Assessee filed its return of income on 11.10.2010 declaring income of Rs. 26,18,68,287/-. During the year, the assessee has undertaken international transaction of provision of market support services of Rs. 20.54 crores. It has entered into 9 other international transactions. The assessee has adopted transactional net margin