← 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

Exxon Mobile Gas (India) P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi

ITA 6555/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6775/Del/2013 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Exxonmobil Gas (India) Private Limited, Suite No.1021, The Lalit, Barakhamba Avenue, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabce1792K अपीलार्थी Appellant बनाम Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 10(1), Central Revenue Building, New Delhi. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6555/Del/2018 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Exxonmobil Gas (India) Private Limited, Suite No.1021, The Lalit, Barakhamba Avenue, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabce1792K अपीलार्थी Appellant & बनाम Dcit, Vs. Circle 11(1), Central Revenue Building, New Delhi. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6367/Del/2018 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 8(2), Central Revenue Building, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. Exxonmobil Gas (India) Private Limited, Suite No. 1021, The Lalit, Barakhamba Avenue, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabce1792K अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ankit Sahni, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr 1

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

ITA Nos. 6775/D/2013, 6555/D/2018 & 6367/D/2018 EXXONMOBIL GAS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "I" NEW