“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

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. Omaxe Limited, New Delhi

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

ITA 2403/DEL/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roydcit, Vs. Omaxe Limited, Gurugram. 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110 016. (Pan : Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akshat Jain, Ca Shri Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Garima Mathur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Order : 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi-44 Dated 13.02.2025 For Ay 2014-15 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “(I) Whether Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Deduction U/S 80Ib (10) Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.5,22,08,123/- In Respect Of The Profits From Housing Project Which Are Group Housing Scheme Of Multi-Storied Flats In The Projects Namely M/S Royal Residency, Ludhiana? (Ii) Whether Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Following The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) - 19 For The Ay 2011-12 Wherein It Was Held That The Aforesaid Group Housing Scheme Is Separately Satisfying The Conditions Laid Down In The Provisions Of 2 Section 80Ib(10) Despite Observing That The Consolidated Approval Of The Local Authority Is For The Entire Project? (Iii) Whether The Decision Of Ld. Cit(A) Does Not Suffer From The Vice Of Perversity? (Iv) Whether Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Determining The Credit Spread At 500 Basis Points, Relying Upon The Guidelines Issued By Reserve Bank Of India For External Commercial Borrowing? (V) Whether Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Ignoring The Judgment Of Hon'Ble High Court?”

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Garima Mathur, Sr. DR

Section 80I

years or commencement of the development activities, whichever is earlier. The matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer who treated this as an international transaction and while benchmarking this transaction, he treated these as Indian Rupee loans and took the prevailing interest rates of 12 percent to make

Juniper Networks Solution India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC Itd, New Delhi

In the result, ground no 3 raised by the assessee is allowed in its favour

ITA 4400/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Juniper Networks Solution India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assessment Unit, Unit No.Iia, 06Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Nfac Itd, Parliament Street, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aaecj1345A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate Shri Sandeep Bhalla, Advocate Shri Anurag Singhal, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Order : 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.07.2024 Passed By The Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)/144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

scrutiny through CASS on the following issues :– S.No. Issue i. Claim of Any Other Amount Allowable as Deduction in Schedule BP ii. Imports iii International Transactions 5. A reference u/s 92CA(1) of the Act, was made to the TPO on 29.12.2021 in respect of the international transactions/specific domestic transactions ... issued and duly served upon the assessee. 6. The case was referred to TPO on the basis of information that the assessee has reported international transactions reported in the form no 4 3CEB. The profile of the assessee was reproduced by the TPO in his order at page

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi vs. Tvarur and Fats Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3006/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assistant Commissioner Vs. Tvarur & Fats Pvt. Ltd. Of Income Tax, Unit No. 101, 102A, First Floor, Room No. 332, 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 9, Realtech Copia, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Corporate Suits, Jasola District Extension, New Delhi Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aaect7561Q Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 83/Del/2024 (In Ita No. 3006/Del/2024) Tvarur & Fats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Unit No. 101, 102A, First Income Tax, Floor, Plot No. 9, Room No. 332, 3Rd Floor, Ara Realtechcopia, Corporate Centre, Jhandewalan Suits, Jasola District Extension, New Delhi Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aaect7561Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Sh. Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 92C

Delhi passed an order u/s 92CA(3) of the IT Act, on 31.10.2019 rejecting the CUP Method used by the Assessee to benchmark the international transaction and concluded at ALP Method, proposing the average GP/Sales of the comparables to be taken at 4.29% (GP/Sales, Median) as against margin ... provides as under: Rule 10D: Information and documents to be kept and maintained under section 92D: "(1) Every person who has entered into an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] shall keep and maintain the following information and documents, namely:- (g) a record of uncontrolled transactions taken into account

Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Knwon As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, . Circle-26(2), New Delhi

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8361/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K,. Jadav, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

submitted that transaction between Virgin USA LLC and Virgin Enterprise Ltd is controlled transaction and cannot be taken as a comparable to benchmark the international transaction and therefore, the TPO/DRP/AO's action on selecting to benchmark the transaction is completely erroneous.As regards the ALP paid to RGL taken ... impugned assessment year before us is the first full fledged year of business thereafter. Section 92(1) mandates any income arising from an international transaction to be computed having regard to arms length price. The same admittedly applies in case of international transactions; as it then was, between two associate

Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 6857/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 270ASection 40

development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, or exploitation (“DEMPE”) of intellectual property. Its profit and cost structure reflected complete financial insulation. 15. For benchmarking its international transaction of payment of distribution fee to its Associated Enterprises, Netflix India applied the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) under ... recharacterised Netflix India's profile an aspect discussed subsequently. TPO's Analysis and Finding 19. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), while examining the international transactions between Netflix India and its Associated Enterprises (NIBV and later Netflix US), departed from the assessee's declared functional characterization as a "limited-risk distributor

Assam Bio Ethanol Private Limited, Guwahati vs. ITO W-1(1), Guwahati

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 288/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: The Drp Was That The

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(3)

r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”). 1.1 In this case, the assessee is seen to have entered into 04 international transactions, as detailed on page 2 of the DRP’s order. The point of dispute is a payment ... they deserve to be extracted for reference: “7.5 In view of the above, the undersigned has amply explained and clarified that post analysis of international transaction entered into by assessee, it could be concluded that the said transaction has not been undertaken at arm's length. No pricing analysis

Gujarat Energy Development Agency, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1180/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 270A

account; (e) failure to record any receipt in books of account having a bearing on total income; and (f) failure to report any international transaction or any transaction deemed to be an international transaction or any specified domestic transaction, to which the provisions of Chapter X apply. 18. In view

Gujarat Energy Development Agency, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1179/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 270A

Michael Page International Recruitment Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6748/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 37Section 41Section 92D

Pricing – 3(2)(1), Mumbai ('Ld. TPO') has erred in making a transfer pricing adjustment of INR.19,42,69,527/- in relation to the international transactions pertaining to payment for availing of business support services and business technology services ('together to be known as 'Intra group services' or 'IGS'). Ground ... erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO to determine the ALP of the Appellant's international transaction of availing of IGS from its Associated Enterprises ('AEs') as NIL instead of Rs.19,42,69,527 as determined by the Appellant. The Ld. AO/Ld.TPO while making TP adjustment

Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly Known As Allscripts (India) LLP), Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, Ground Number 11 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 359/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 92C(1)

erred in confirming the addition of INR 3,94,09,319/- to the total income of the Appellant by holding that the international transaction in relation to provision of software development services by the Appellant is not at arm's length price as envisaged under the income ... Appellant prays that the Lo. TPO be directed to accept the book value of the aforesaid international transactions as the arm's length price and accordingly, the Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment ought to be deleted 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions Ag, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Transfer Pricing Circle -4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3621/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarthyssenkrupp Industrial V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Solutions Ag बनाम Income Tax,Transfer Pricing C/O Mohinder Puri & Co., 1A- Circle – 4(2)(2), Air India D, Vandhna Building, 11 Building, Nariman Point, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – Mumbai–400021, Maharashtra 110 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcp5301B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. J.Amalsadwala,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (Sr. DR)

Section 271GSection 273BSection 92DSection 92D(1)Section 92D(3)

German company having no physical presence or place of business in India, filed its tax return and Form 3CEB for the year declaring international transactions worth Rs. 11,15,64,739/-. During the year under consideration,it received certain income comprising of fees for technical services and Royalty in terms ... relevant to note the provisions of section 271G of the Act, which reads as follows: - "271G. If any person who has entered into an international transaction fails to furnish any such information or document as required by sub-section (3) of section 92D, the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals

Schneider Electric Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), C. R. Building, Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly

ITA 5589/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2021-22 Schneider Electric Private Vs Dcit, Limited, Circle 22(2), C-56, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Delhi. Phase-2, West Delhi, Delhi – 110 064. Pan: Abacs1671F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms Tanya, Advocate. Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.10.2024 Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Ay 2021-22. 2. Heard & Perused The Records. On The Basis Of Submission & Material On Record It Comes Up That Assesse/ Appellant (Sepl) Was Incorporated In 2018 As A Subsidiary Of Schneider Electric Industries Sas (A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Schneider Electric Se) & Belgium. It Is A Private Limited Company

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

collection of trade receivables from the AEs. Ld. Counsel has submitted that the outstanding receivables are a result / consequence of the Appellant’s international transactions with its AEs and is not a separate international transaction per se as per provisions of section 92B of the Act; and therefore, the same

Assimilate Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle, 1(1), Delhi

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in this regard is dismissed

ITA 5357/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassimilate Solutions India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, C/O Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Llp, Circle 1 (1), Chartered Accountants, New Delhi. C – 763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. (Pan :Aakca4501H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv Sapra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dharam Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Order : 15.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2021-22 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. M/S. Assimilate Solutions India Private Limited, The Assessee Was Incorporated On 19.04,2012 & Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

issued on 28.06.2022 and duly served upon the assessee. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS on the following grounds: (a) International transaction(s) arising out/being part of business restructuring or reorganization (T.P. risk parameter. 3. During the year, the assessee has undertaken the following international transactions/specified domestic transaction ... S.No. Nature of international transaction Amount in (INR) 1 Provided back-office services ITES 90,30,69,262 services 4. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice the relevant facts which are reproduced below: 1.1 During FY 2020-21, Assimilate Solutions India Private

Tupperware India Private Limited, Connaught Place New Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Through Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ip Estate New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly

ITA 4475/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92BSection 92C

doing so, the Ld. AO / Ld. TPO erred in: 5.1. not appreciating the fact that AMP expenses incurred by Appellant is not an international transaction in terms of the Section 92B of the Act, thereby violating the principles laid down by the jurisdictional High Court; 3 5.2. not providing ... reason/documentary evidence to demonstrate that the AMP expenses incurred by the Appellant constitute an international transaction; 5.3. not appreciating the characterization of the Appellant, that it functions in the capacity of a licensed manufacturer and is entitled to the residual profit/loss arising in the business; 5.4. not appreciating that

Alfanar Energy Private Limited, Gurugram, Haryana, India vs. The Deputy Or Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurugram, Haryana, India

The appeal is allowed partly with consequences to follow as per the directions given to AO/TPO above

ITA 4439/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Alfanar Energy Private Limited, Vs Dcit, 16Th Floor, Building No.5, Circle-1(1), Block-C, Dlf Cyber City, Gurugram. Phase Iii, Gurugram, Haryana – 122 002. Pan: Aapca2671M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate; Ms Reema Grewal, Ca; & Ms Snigdha Gautam, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Of The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurugram (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Ld. Ao’) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. The Assessee Is Part Of The Multinational Group, Arabian Trading Group Which Is Based Out Of Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia & Is Engaged In Generating, Developing, Accumulating, Distributing & Supplying Electricity By Setting Renewable Energy Power Plants. This Is The First Year Of The Assessment Of The Assessee. During The Year, The Assessee Has Undertaken The Following International Transactions:- International Transactions Transfer Pricing Method Total Value Of International Transactions (In Inr) Issue Of Compulsorily Other Method 2,44,77,26,400 Convertible Debentures (Ccds) Interest On Ccds Comparable Uncontrolled 46,52,90,098 Price (Cup) Method Issue Of Equity Shares Other Method 45,04,31,700

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Renewable Energy Power Plants. This is the first year of the assessment of the assessee. During the year, the assessee has undertaken the following international transactions:- International Transactions Transfer Pricing method Total Value of International Transactions (in INR) Issue of compulsorily Other method 2,44,77,26,400 convertible debentures ... pressed. The ground No.3 arises out of the fact of AO/TPO holding the interest charged on CCD issue by the assessee as international transaction and subsequent ground No.4 to 11 are with regard to transfer pricing adjustments proposed on this alleged international transaction relating to payment of interest on CCDs

Lg Electronics India Private Limited, Mathura Road, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 433/DEL/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

invoices Rs. 1658,73,81,046/- Total Rs. 1200,72,66,766/- 5.5 The ld TPO sought to treat the AMP expenses as an international transaction within the meaning of Section 92B of the Act. For this purposes, he undertook benchmarking analysis of AMP expenditure applied Bright Line Test ... decision of the special bench of this tribunal in assessee‘s own case for AY 2007-08 held that AMP expenses constitutes an international transaction. However, the ld DRP directed the ld TPO to recompute the AMP expenditure after due consideration of special bench order in assessee‘s own case