← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Limited (Formerly Known As Lodha Developers Pvt Ltd.) (Successor of M/S Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.2385/Mum/2022 filed by the learned

ITA 2385/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Macrotech Developers Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Known As Lodha Tax, Developers Pvt. Ltd.)(Successor Of Central Circle-7(3), M/S Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Room No,655, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Pvt. Ltd.) 412, 4Th Floor, 17 G, Vardhman M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Market, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort Mumbai 400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl1490J

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

picked up for scrutiny. Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 05. The learned Assessing Officer found that assessee has entered into several other international transactions and therefore, reference was made to the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing, 3(1)(1), Mumbai, (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) on 15th ... December, 2017, for determination of Arm's Length Price of international transaction. The order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act was passed on 31st October, 2018. i. Only Transfer pricing dispute is with respect to the determination of Arm's Length Price of corporate guarantee issued by the assessee

Dy.CIT -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kec International Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1883/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147(3)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92F

Associated Enterprises (AE). ii. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating corporate Guarantee by the appellant for its AE is not an "International Transaction "as per Provision of Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No. 1852 & 1883/Mum/2022 KEC International Ltd; A.Y. 2014-15 iii. The learned CIT (A) erred ... loans taken by its associated enterprise has no bearing on the profit, income, loss or assets of the Appellant therefore same is not international transaction under section 92B of the Act. It does not come within ambit of section 92B of the Act as no income arises from the said

Kec International Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1852/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147(3)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92F

Associated Enterprises (AE). ii. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating corporate Guarantee by the appellant for its AE is not an "International Transaction "as per Provision of Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No. 1852 & 1883/Mum/2022 KEC International Ltd; A.Y. 2014-15 iii. The learned CIT (A) erred ... loans taken by its associated enterprise has no bearing on the profit, income, loss or assets of the Appellant therefore same is not international transaction under section 92B of the Act. It does not come within ambit of section 92B of the Act as no income arises from the said