“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

B & R Industrial Automation Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Pune

ITA 2469/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

92CA of the Act. The TPO noted that Assessee had applied Transactional Net Margin Method(TNMM) to determine Arm’s Length Price of its international transaction. The Assessee has selected Profit Level Indicator as Operating Profit upon Operating Revenue(OP/OR). The TPO passed an order u/s.92CA

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Snf India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

ITA 210/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.204/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S. Snf (India) Private Limited 19 Jnpc, Ramky Pharmacity Paravada, Visakhapatnam – 531021 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaacp4070A] Vs. Dcit - Circle – 3(1) Income Tax Office Infinity Towers, Sankarmat Road Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.209 & 210/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Years:2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit - Circle – 3(1) 35,50-92-35, Sankaramatam Road Opposite Reliance Fresh, Beside Reliance Fresh, Nearby Main Road Madhuranagar, Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam – 530016 Vs. M/S. Snf (India) Private Limited Plot No. 19 Ponnuru Village, Parawada Mandal Visakhapatnam – 531021 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaacp4070A] करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ca Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) 01.09.2025 08.10.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 08.11.2019. It was observed from the Form-3CEB report that the assessee has entered into international transaction with its Associated Enterprise (in short "AE") aggregating to Rs.187.55 Crores. Thereafter, reference was made to Addl.CIT (Transfer pricing), Hyderabad on 15.11.2018 after obtaining ... section 92CA(3) of the Act on 29.10.2019 vide Order No. ITBA/TPO/F/92CA3/2019-20/1019531492(1) for the A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee has entered into the international transactions as follows: Associated Enterprises Nature of International/Domestic Transactions Amount Received/Receivable (Amount in INR) Amount Paid Payable (Amount in INR) PT SNF Florindo Purchase

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Snf India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

ITA 209/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

Invesco (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1320/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1320/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Invesco (India) (P) Ltd Vs. Hyderabad Dy.Cit Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Respondent) Pan:Aacch8216L (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Cas Shri K.C.Devdas, Kranthi Pallivelu & Mrudulatha राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Invesco (India) (P) Ltd, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Pass By The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. Ao") U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act (“ The Act”), Dated 29.10.2024 For The A.Y 2021-22.

For Appellant: CAs Shri K.C.Devdas, KranthiFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in:- 11.1 In considering trade receivables from AE as a separate international transaction and further erred in proposing transfer pricing adjustment in the nature of interest on receivables amounting to INR 36,28,335 /- 11.2 Not appreciating that ... instant transaction is not covered in the definition of international transaction as defined u/s 92B of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case: 11.3 Delinking the inter-company receivables arising from the main international transactions and proceeding to benchmark the same as a separate transaction. 11.4 Taxing

Honda R&D (India) Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4930/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekhonda R&D (India) Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1), Technical Centre Plot No.2, Delhi. Sector 3, Imt Manesar, Gurugram – 122 052 (Haryana). (Pan : Aabch3071N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2025 Date Of Order : 08.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

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

scientific analysis carried out by the Appellant in its Transfer Pricing Documentation and accordingly re- determining the arm's length price of the impugned international transaction involving 'payment of infrastructure fee' and 'reimbursement of expenses paid' following a segregating benchmarking approach. 4. Impugned Order erred in re-determining the price ... impugned international transaction involving 'payment of infrastructure service fees' and 'reimbursement of expenses paid', as the circumstances necessitating the determination of price by the Ld. TPO as mentioned in sub-section (3) of section 92C did not exist in case of the Appellant. 5. The impugned order is erroneous

Jogpl Pvt Ltd, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT Circle-13(1) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 14

ITA 1718/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshjogpl Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Plot No. 15, Knowledge Circle-13(1), Park-2, Greater Noida, Delhi Up 2011306 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaace0169K Assessee By : Shri M. K. Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri S. K. Jadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. jadav, CIT DR

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

block in Myanmar as other part of exploration of oil and gas. During the year under consideration, the assessee entered into an international transaction of provision of negative lien on receivables and participating interest (PI) on the oil and gas blocks. The background of the arrangement is as under:- Amount ... guarantee for its AEs for obtaining the credit facilities resulting in direct benefit to the AE. c) Corporate guarantees fall under the envelope of international transactions as defined in Explanation to section 92B of the Act. d) The Corporate guarantee was entered into to proactively influence the profits and incomes

Panasonic India Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Neac, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 612/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshpanasonic India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Neac, 12Th Floor, Ambience New Delhi Corporate Office, Tower-2, Ambience Island, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcp9391B

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

Resale Price Method (RPM') as adopted by the Appellant and applying Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM') as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction; 3.2. disregarding the internal gross level comparison despite the Ld. TPO accepting that internal RPM is the more acceptable method in the present case ... following segments:- (i) Trading/ Distribution Segment (ii) Support Services Segment (iii) Manufacturing Segment 4.2. For the year under consideration, the assessee reported the international transactions and specified domestic transactions undertaken by it in Form No 3CEB. Under the Trading / Distribution Segment, the assessee performs trading functions i.e. the assessee purchases

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

making transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs.789,92,95,000 on account of the alleged difference in the arm's length price of international transactions of payment of royalty entered into by the appellant on the basis of the order under section 92CA(3) of the Act. 12.1 That ... erred on facts and in law in holding that the international transaction of payment of royalty does not satisfy the arm's length principles as envisaged under the Act. 12.2 That the TPO / DRP erred on facts and in law in holding that out of the total royalty paid

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and

ITA 6949/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

making transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs.789,92,95,000 on account of the alleged difference in the arm's length price of international transactions of payment of royalty entered into by the appellant on the basis of the order under section 92CA(3) of the Act. 12.1 That ... erred on facts and in law in holding that the international transaction of payment of royalty does not satisfy the arm's length principles as envisaged under the Act. 2.2. That the TPO / DRP erred on facts and in law in holding that out of the total royalty paid

M/S Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and

ITA 287/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

making transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs.789,92,95,000 on account of the alleged difference in the arm's length price of international transactions of payment of royalty entered into by the appellant on the basis of the order under section 92CA(3) of the Act. 12.1 That ... erred on facts and in law in holding that the international transaction of payment of royalty does not satisfy the arm's length principles as envisaged under the Act. 2.2. That the TPO / DRP erred on facts and in law in holding that out of the total royalty paid

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

M/S. Tbea Shenyang Trasformer Group Company Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Int. Tax., Vadodara

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 121/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-2014 M/S.Tbea Shenyang Transformer Dcit, International Group Company Limited Vs. Taxation Tbea Green Energy Park Vadodara. National Highway No.8 Village : Miyagam Karjan Vadodara Pan : Aadct 4557 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar : Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Arises From The Assessment Order Dated 07.11.2017 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2013-14 In Accordance With The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92E

Assessing Officer, the assessee did not furnish the accountant’s report in Form 3CEB and stated that it had not undertaken any international transaction as defined in section 92B. A show cause letter dated 25.02.2016 was then issued. The assessee filed its written objections on 07.03.2016. The Assessing Officer ... case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer [hereinafter referred to as “TPO”] for determination of the arm’s length price of the international transactions. The TPO, by order under section 92CA(3) dated 25.10.2016, determined an upward adjustment in the arm’s length price. In the narration of facts

Sp Armada Oil Exploration Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6575/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsp Armada Oil Exploration Private Limited 404, Trade Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051. Pan: Aaqcs7983P ............... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani a/w Shri Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Shri. Pravin Salunkhe & Shri Aditya M. Rai

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 253(1)Section 92C(1)Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

erred in alleging that a 2.5% brokerage/facilitation fee should be deducted to determine the arm's length price of the international transaction for payment of bareboat charter hire fees, despite there being no understanding agreement nor act of parties suggesting such consideration. 9. Without prejudice, on facts and circumstances ... learned AD/TPO, under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in determining the arm's length price of the international transaction of payment of bareboat charter hire fees on an ad-hoc basis without applying any of the prescribed methods as per section

Aptiv Components India P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Delphi Automotive Systems P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2082/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S Aptive Components India Vs. Acit, Private Limited (Formerly Known Circle-1(1), As M/S Delphi Automotive New Delhi System Private Limited), P-24, Green Park Extension, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacd0226F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv Ms. Richa Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Singh, Sr. DR

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

component industry. This facility is located in Bangalore (Karnataka). Further, assessee has one Engineering Centre based in Pune along with manufacturing segment. 5.1. The International transactions carried out by the assessee are listed at pages 1 and 2 of the order of the Learned TPO dated ... tabular form duly mentioning the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) applied by the assessee for each transaction. Out of the total 13 international transactions , the disputed transactions before us are with Payment for Technical Support Service Charges of Rs 2,95,57,620/- and Payment for Cost Recharges

Ltimindtree Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT (2)(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4831/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriltimindtree Limited Vs. Acit, Circle (2)(2)(1) (Formerly Larse & Toubro Mumbai/Cit(A)-Nfac- Infotech Limited) Delhi L & T Technology Center, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor , Gate No. 5, Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Road, Powai, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacl1681P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat- Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 92C

case was selected for complete scrutiny as the assessee had shown large value of international transactions in the nature of Technical service fees. Reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer(TPO) for computation of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) u/s. 92CA of the Act, of commission paid

J P Morgan Services India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4781/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrij P Morgan Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited (‘The Income-Tax, Circle 2(2)(1) Appellant’) Aayakar Bhawan, Tower A Blk 9, Tower B Blk Maharishi Karve Road, 10, Tower C Blk 11, Nirlon New Marine Lines, Knowledge Park, Western Churchgate, Express Highway, Goregaon Mumbai-400020. East, Mumbai Suburban, 400063. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd0503B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT DR)

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

Income Tax, Transfer Pricing ADDL/JCIT TP 2(3) (Ld. TPO') and making an adjustment of INR 630,27.78,876/- in relation to the international transaction of provision of back office support services in the nature of information technology (IT) Support Services and IT enabled services (ITeS') to the associated enterprises ... final set of comparable(s), which are functionally in the nature of IT Support services and IT enabled services. dissimilar to the Appellant's international transaction of provision of back office support services 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO/Ld

Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar, Pune vs. CIT(A)-11, Pune

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

ITA 1700/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20 Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar Acit, Central Circle, 2165, B Ward, Koshti Galli, Vs. Kolhapur Mangalwar Peth, Pune – 416012 Pan: Acppc3559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Milind Debaje, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT

Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)(e)Section 274Section 69A

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

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 890/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

noted that the assessee had not charged any commission for extending such guarantees. He was of the opinion that the transaction was an international transaction that required benchmarking, and accordingly determined the arm’s length commission at 1.5%. assessee’s income for the respective years. 6. In the first appellate

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 889/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 37Section 69ASection 69C

noted that the assessee had not charged any commission for extending such guarantees. He was of the opinion that the transaction was an international transaction that required benchmarking, and accordingly determined the arm's length commission at 1.5%. Based on such adjustment, additions were made to the assessee's income

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 888/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A