← 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

Fidelity Information Services India Private Limited, Punjab vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 998/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 998/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Fidelity Information Services Vs The Dcit, Chandigarh, India Private Ltd., 2Nd A-45, Industrial Area, Sector 74, Phase 8B, Sas Nagar. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aagcs0395D अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate & Ms. Sumisha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Hybrid Hearing Order Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.07.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)/144B Of The Income Tax Act In

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate & Ms. Sumisha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 270A

entered into by the assessee with CBDT covers the impugned assessment year, being one of the roll back years and covers the international transaction of provision of software development services and reimbursement of expenses as so described therein and TNMM has been determined as per the most appropriate method with ... assessee u/s 92CD and the annual compliance report and has stated clearly that no adverse inference is drawn in respect of the international transaction undertaken by the assessee during the financial year relevant to impugned assessment year. 15. We therefore find that where the assessee given the past litigative history