← 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

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Welspun Global Brands Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2182/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Miss. Padmavathy S.() Ι.Τ.Α. No.2073/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) M/S Welspun Global Brands Ltd Vs 9Th Floor, Welspun House, Kmala Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Pan: Aabcb5226F Appellant Dcit-8(3)(2), Mumbai Respondent Ι.Τ.Α. Νο.2182/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-8(3)(1), Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Room No.615 M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Vs M/S Welspun Global Brands Ltd 9Th Floor, Welspun House, Kmala Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Pan: Aabcb5226F Respondent Present For The Assessee Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Ld.Sr.Counsel Alongwith Harsh Kapadia, Ca Present For The Department Shri. Nihar Samal, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31/01/2024 2

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

inclined to decide ITA NO.2073/Mum/2022 as a lead. 4. In the instant case, the Assessee during the relevant assessment year has entered into some international transactions and, therefore, the case of the Assessee was referred by the ITO 7(3)(2), Mumbai on 19/07/2013 to the TPO / Addl. Commissioner ... Income-tax, Transfer Pricing 4(3), Mumbai for the computation of arm's length price (in short `ALP') in relation to the international transactions as detailed in audit report in Form No.3CEB. 3 ITAS 2073/Mum/2022 & 2182/Mum/2022 Welspun Global Brands Ltd 5. The Ld. TPO by perusing the financials

DDIT (It) 3(2), Mumbai vs. The Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are also partly allowed

ITA 3828/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.8841/Mum/2010 The Bank Of Nova Scotia Vs. Assistant Director Of Mittal Towers, B Wing Income Tax (It) -3(2) Nariman Point Scindia House Mumbai – 400 020 Ballard Pier Mumbai – 400 038 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacb1536H Appellant .. Respondent It(Tp)A. No.3862/Mum/2013 The Bank Of Nova Scotia Vs. Additional Director Of Mittal Towers, B Wing Income Tax (It) -3 Nariman Point Air India Building Mumbai – 400 020 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb1536H Appellant .. Respondent Ita.No.3989/Mum/2012 Deputy Director Of Income Vs. M/S The Bank Of Nova Tax (It) -3(2) Scotia, Mittal Towers, B Scindia House Wing, Nariman Point Ballard Pier, N. M. Road Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 038

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Anil Sant
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92C(2)

wrongly computing the benefit of 5 percent variation from the operating cost as against the revised arm's length price for the international transaction relating to the provision of correspondent banking services under the provisions of section 92C(2) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend ... Appeals The Bank of Novascotia Vs. ADIT(IT) 3(2) clients. The TPO has applied internal comparable uncontrolled price CUP for benchmarking this international transaction of the assesseeas against TNMM Transactional Net Margin Method used by the assessee and computed the transfer pricing adjustment on this account as under: Description