← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, Corporate Circle-1 1, Chennai vs. Flextronics Technologies India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3016/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3016/Chny/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Flextronics Technologies India Tax, Private Limited, Corporate Circle-1(1), Plot No.3, Phase Ii Sipcot Industrial Chennai. Park, Sandavellure C Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chennai-602 106 [Pan: Aaacf5248E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Co No.5 /Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Flextronics Technologies India Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.3, Phase Ii Sipcot Industrial Corporate Circle-1(1), Park, Sandavellure C Village, Chennai. Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chennai-602 106 [Pan: Aaacf5248E] अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.Lalith Kumar, Ca & Mr.S.Sripal, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, Cit

For Appellant: Mr.P.Lalith Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 144Section 144C(1)

engaged in the business of manufacturing of mobile phones and printed circuit board assemblies. The Ld.AO had noted that the assessee had indulged in international transactions with its AEs. Consequently, in terms of CBDT Page - 2 - of 8 ITA No.3016 & CO 5 /Chny/2024 circulars a reference was made

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Bahwan Cybertek Pvt Ltd, Chennai

ITA 1836/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1836/Chny/2024 & C.O.No.62/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1836/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Bahwan Cybertek Private Limited, Vs. No.148, Bahwan Cybertek It Park, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (Omr), Okkiyam, Thoraipakkam, Chennai - 600 097. [Pan: Aabcb- 2020-P] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) It(Tp) A No.: 22/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bahwan Cybertek Private Limited, No.148, Bahwan Cybertek It Park, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (Omr), Okkiyam, Thoraipakkam, Chennai - 600 097. [Pan: Aabcb- 2020-P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri. N. V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri. Ar. V. Sreenivasan, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 : 21.11.2025 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld.Cit(A)”] For The

For Respondent: Shri. N. V. Balaji, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') u/s.92CA(1) of the Act for determination of Arms Length Price ("ALP") in respect of international transactions reported in Form No.3CEB. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer ("AO") passed an assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(3) of the Act proposing certain additions ... guarantee commissions based on external analysis of bank guarantee rates. 16. The TPO treated corporate guarantee extended to AE subsidiary company as an international transaction u/s.92B of the Act and computed Corporate Guarantee fee at the rate of 1 percent. 17. Aggrieved by the said addition, the assessee filed