“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

Ayatna Realty Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1295/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Wrigley India Private Dcit, Limited Circle-27(2), 206, Okhla Industrial Vs. New Delhi. Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent) Joint Cit (Osd), M/S Wrigley India Private Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi Vs. 206, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250(6)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition in respect of international transaction of provision of contract Research and Development ('R&D') services by relying on the order passed by the Ld. TPO/Ld. AO under Section 92CA ... /143(3) of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred on facts and in law in holding that the international transaction pertaining to provision of contract R&D service does not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Act and in doing so have

Ayatna Realty Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1294/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Section 250(6)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur vs. Avantha Holdings Limited, Chandrapur

ITA 354/NAG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member Avantha Holdings Ltd. Ballarpur Paper Mills S.O. Ballarpur 442 901 Pan – Aabcb6134E

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 251

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Avantha Holdings Limited, New Delhi vs. A.C.I.T. Cir-5, Nagpur

ITA 45/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member Avantha Holdings Ltd. Ballarpur Paper Mills S.O. Ballarpur 442 901 Pan – Aabcb6134E Appellant Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-4, Nagpur Respondent V/S

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 251

assessee, does not have any bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of enterprises and therefore it is outside the ambit of International transaction to which ALP adjustments can be made. For this reason, the Hon'ble ITAT held that the issuance of corporate guarantee in question ... constitute International transaction within the meaning thereof u/s.92B. The appellant also relied on the order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Videocon Industries Ltd. (2015) 55 Taxmam.com 263 (Mumbai Trib.). In this case also it was held that a corporate guarantee given by assessee company

Dy. C.I.T. Cir-.5, Nagpur vs. M/S Avantha Holdings Ltd., Chandrapur

ITA 248/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member Avantha Holdings Ltd. Ballarpur Paper Mills S.O. Ballarpur 442 901 Pan – Aabcb6134E Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 251

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Dana Anand India Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Akurdi, Pune

ITA 1571/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri R D OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 37Section 37(1)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 80ASection 80G

income of Rs.164,60,25,620/- which was revised by declaring total income of Rs.167,30,95,140/-. Since the assessee had undertaken certain international transactions, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the arm's length price of the international transactions

Ras Lifesciences Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT., Circle 3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 788/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

DRP/Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") have erred in making Transfer Pricing adjustment amounting to INR 9,15,68,139 in respect of the international transactions relating to sale of goods. 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO have grossly erred in rejecting the benchmarking ... business; 3.2. Erred in not appreciating and accepting the documents maintained by the Appellant in support of the arm's length price of the international transactions, despite the fact that the documents provided are aligned with the requirements laid out in the Act and Income-Tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules

Lesso Buildtech Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1698/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

case was taken for complete scrutiny assessment. A reference was made to Transfer Pricing Officer for determining the Arm’s Length Price of International transaction. The TPO made Transfer Pricing upward adjustment of Rs.43,29,60,041/-. Thereafter the Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order u/s. 144C(1) vide order

DCIT, Aayakar Bhavan Churchgate, Mumbai vs. Iifl Finance Ltd, Thane, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4318/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 92C

Scheme, 2021, except, inter-alia, the 3 ITAs No.4159 & 4318/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2012-13) appeals against assessments involving arm’s length price of international transaction under Chapter-X of the Act. Accordingly, the learned DR submitted that the learned CIT(A), NFAC, had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned ... shall be completed under the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021, except, inter-alia, the appeals against assessments and penalties involving arm’s length price of international transaction or specified domestic transactions under Chapter-X of the Act. We find that vide the notification dated 13/10/2022, the CBDT directed that the Commissioner

DCIT-4(2)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai vs. Iifl Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4159/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 92C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Haldwani vs. Delta Power Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., (Now), Delta Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

Accordingly. This Revenue’s appeal ITA Nos. 5543/Del/2018 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun02 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. M/S. Dcit, Delta Power Solution Circle-1, (India) Pvt. Ltd., Haldwani Plot No. 38, Phase-1, Sector-5, Iie, Pantnagar, Rudrapur, Distt. Us Nagar, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand Pan: Aaccd5896N (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No. 38/Del/2019 [Arise Out Of Ita No.5543/Del/2018] Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Dcit, Delta Power Solution (India) Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Plot No. 38, Phase-1, Sector- Haldwani 5, Iie, Pantnagar, Rudrapur, Distt. Us Nagar, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand Pan: Aaccd5896N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Delta Power Solution (India) Acit, Haldwani Pvt. Ltd. (Now, Delta Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. 43, Sector-35, Hsiidc, Gurgaon Pan: Aaccd5896N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

foremost issue of inclusion of M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. as a comparable whilst determining the arm’s length price “ALP” of the respondent/taxpayer’s international transactions with its overseas associates enterprises involving manufacturing segment. We are taken to page 57, para 6.2.7 of the lower appellate discussion rejecting M/s. Crompton ... instant former appeal ITA No.5543/Del/2018 seeking to include M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. in the array of comparables whilst degerming ALP of the assessee’s international transactions and leave it upon open for the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to finalize his consequential computation in very terms

DCIT, Circle-1, Haldwani vs. Delta Power Solution India Pvt. Ltd., U S Nagar

Accordingly. This Revenue’s appeal ITA Nos. 5543/Del/2018 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5543/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Dehradun02 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)

DCIT, Cirlce- 1(1) (1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. American Express Banking Corp. (India Branch), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 165/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

three issues: (i) Rejection of TP study [Ground No.3] (ii) Adoption of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (hereinafter, the ‘CUP’) method instead of TNMM for benchmarking international transactions [Ground Nos. 4 to 7] (iii) Issues relating to Indian & Foreign Associate Enterprises (hereinafter, the ‘AE’) [Ground Nos. 8 to 11]. 3.1 Ground ... declaring loss of Rs. (-)11,01,01,306/-. The case was picked up for scrutiny. Since the assessee was engaged in various international transactions worth INR 2,660,007,780/-, therefore, the Assessing officer (hereinafter, the ‘AO’) referred this case to the Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter, the ‘TPO’). Adjustments were

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Emami Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1330/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, DR

partly deleted the addition made by the Id. AO/ Transfer Pricing Officer to the tune of %34,85,222/- in respect of international transaction, qua corporate guarantee by the assessee to its Associated Enterprises. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that

Aristocrat Residences LLP, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 34 (1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1118/KOL/2024[AY-2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward Aristocrat Residences Llp 34(1) 2 Oswal Chambers Church Lane Aaykar Bhavan, Bbd Bagh, Kolkata-700001 Vs. Kolkata-700107 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavfa9997R Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Ar Revenue By : H. Robindro Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, ARFor Respondent: H. Robindro Singh, DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

claimed excessive loss, deduction, allowance or relief in the return; (ba) where the assessee has failed to furnish a report in respect of any international transaction which he was so required under section 92E] (c) where an assessment has been made, but- Aristocrat Residences LLP; A.Y. 2013-14 (i) income

Royal Canin India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground no

ITA 4546/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta a/w Shri AnmolFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar (CIT DR)

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

care products. The assessee group manufactures, processes, and sells food products worldwide. During the alleged assessment year, the assessee undertook the following international transactions with its AES: Particulars Most Appropriate Method ('MAM') Value international transaction (INR) Tested party Margin Arm's length range Payment of franchisee fees Comparable uncontrolled price ... order of the Id. AO. 14. We heard the rival submission and perused the documents available on record. Considering the ALP of its international transaction pertaining to payment of Franchisee Fees, the assessee had undertaken and maintained contemporaneous documentation. Further, a methodical process for the purpose of comparability analysis

Shri Vijay Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

The appeals are allowed

ITA 928/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal, Ccountant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Zscaler Inc., Vs Dcit, 120, Holger Way San Jose, International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), California, Usa, Delhi. Usa 95134. Pan: Aaacz4350P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate; Shri Kishore Kunal, Advocate; Ms Ankita Prakash, Advocate; & Shri Govind Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.10.2023 & 22.01.2025 Passed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Appellant. This aspect is crucial as the very intent of examining the issue is to see if there is diversion of income by an International Transaction. When there can be no justification to hold Zscaler India to be agent. To establish such status of principal and agent the revenue

Kgk Creations Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 9 to 13 are allowed

ITA 6854/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalkgk Creations Private Limited Jurisdiction Assessing Officer Gj-10, Seepz Sez, Seepz S.O. Vs. (Jao) Mumbai 400096, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai Aayakar Pan No. Aabck0378H Bhawan, Mumbai Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee Represented By Shri Vijay Mehta Ca / Ar Department Represented By Shri Kiran Unavekar Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 254(1)

erred on facts and in law, in making addition of Rs. 6,24,92,982/- to the value of international transactions undertaken by KCPL. B. Relating to transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 5,61,68,896/- on international transactions of Sale/ Purchase of Jewellery/ Diamonds 2. The learned ... statutory auditor) between jewellery manufacturing and diamond trading activity separately and incorrectly adopted entity level margins to test the arm's length price of international transactions pertaining to jewellery manufacturing and diamond trading activity. 3. The learned AO/TPO erred in facts and in law by ignoring the submission made

Cornerstone Ondemand Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT(It)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5677/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR

Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

length price determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB

Connerstone Ondemand Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3753/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR

Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)