← 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

Escorts Kubota Limited (Escorts Kubota India Private Limited Merged With Escorts Kubota Limited), Faridabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad

ITA 5992/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5982/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Mmtc-Pamp India Private Limited, 221, Ground Floor, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-Iii, New Delhi. बनाम Dcit, Vs. Circle-16(1),C.R. Building, Indraprastha Marg, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No.Aafcm3576K अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Ms. Sherry Goyal, Adv. & Ms. Viyushti Rawat, Adv. Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 1994/Del/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Good Year India Ltd., Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana. बनाम Acit (Osd), Vs. Circle 10(1), C.R. Building, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaacg3511H अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv., Shri Ramit Katyal, Ar Shri Dhruv Seth, Adv. & Ms. Mansha Bhalla, Ar Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Bergen Engines (India) Private Limited, बनाम आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5991/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 2Nd Floor, 52B, Okhla Industrial Estate, Dcit, Vs. Circle-4(2), C.R. Building, Phase-Iii, New Delhi. I.P. Estate, Delhi. Pan No.Aaecb7223M अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv., Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Ar & Revenue By Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. (Virtual) Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr

Section 144C(13)

ITA Nos. 5982/D/2024,1994/D/2022, 5991/D/2024, 5992/D/2024, 6034/D/2024,1186/D/2022,422/D/2021 & 1813/D/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”NEW

Microsoft Corporation (India) P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 16(1), New Delhi

ITA 549/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6031/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Munjal Hospitality Private Limited, Um House, Plot No.35, 3Rd Floor, Tower A, Sector-44, Dlf Qe, Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Pan No.Aaccv4293M अपीलार्थी Appellant बनाम The Assessing Officer, Vs. National Faceless Assessee By Shri Jeet Kamdar, Ar (Virtual) Assessment Centre, Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Circle-17(1), C.R. Building, Delhi. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3897/Del/2019 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Zte Telecom India Pvt. Limited, Tower-10B, 6Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana. बनाम Acit, Vs. Circle-4(1), Hsiidc Building, Udyog Vihar, Phase-05, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aaacz1958K अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. & Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3922/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Incedo Technology Solutions Limited बनाम Dcit, A-47, Lower Ground Floor, Hauz Khas, Delhi. Vs. Circle 10(1), Delhi. Pan No.Aacci6243C अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Rohit Tiwar, Adv. & Ms. Tanya, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr 1

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

ITA Nos. 6031/D/2024, 3897/D/2019, 3922/D/2024, 3809/D/2024 & 549/D/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIVIKAS