← 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

Hindalco Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 5576/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5559/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5576/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5560/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Hindalco Industries Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) 3Rd Floor, Century Bhawan, 9Th Floor, Room No.902, Vs. Dr. A.B Road, Worli, Old Cgo Building, M. K. Mumbai-400030. Road, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5796/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5769/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5770/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) बिधम/ Hindalco Industries Ltd. 9Th Floor, Room No.902, 3Rd Floor, Century Vs. Old Cgo Building, M. K. Bhawan, Dr. A.B Road, Road, Mumbai-400020. Worli, Mumbai-400030. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach1201R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala A/W S. M Bandi Revenue By: Shri K. C. Selvamani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w S. M BandiFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153C

Hindalco Industries Ltd. This return was taken up for scrutiny and also referred to the TPO for examination of the international transactions of the assessee. The AO passed the draft assessment order on 27.12.2011 making various disallowances and additions to the returned income. The assessee filed objection before Ld. Disputed

Hindalco Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 5559/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5559/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5576/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5560/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Hindalco Industries Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) 3Rd Floor, Century Bhawan, 9Th Floor, Room No.902, Vs. Dr. A.B Road, Worli, Old Cgo Building, M. K. Mumbai-400030. Road, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5796/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5769/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5770/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) बिधम/ Hindalco Industries Ltd. 9Th Floor, Room No.902, 3Rd Floor, Century Vs. Old Cgo Building, M. K. Bhawan, Dr. A.B Road, Road, Mumbai-400020. Worli, Mumbai-400030. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach1201R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala A/W S. M Bandi Revenue By: Shri K. C. Selvamani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w S. M BandiFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153C

Hindalco Industries Ltd. This return was taken up for scrutiny and also referred to the TPO for examination of the international transactions of the assessee. The AO passed the draft assessment order on 27.12.2011 making various disallowances and additions to the returned income. The assessee filed objection before Ld. Disputed

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hsbc Professional Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 251/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Hsbc Professional Income-Tax-1(1)(2) Services Pvt. Ltd. 579, Aayakar Bhawan, 6Th Floor, Shiv Building M.K. Road, Cts No. 139 & 140B, Mumbai – 400 020 Sahar Road, Vile Parle (E) Mumbai – 57 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabch0705R Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Madanappa Raghuveer Respondent By : Niraj Sheth Date Of Hearing 14.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-56, Mumbai, Dated 29.09.2016 For A.Y. 2010- 11. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Madanappa RaghuveerFor Respondent: Niraj Sheth
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

exclude two companies viz. M/s. Eclerx Services Ltd. and M/s. Vishal Information Technologies Ltd. from the set of comparables for benchmarking assessee's international transaction of provision of back office support services even though these two companies are functionally comparable to the back office support services provided by the assessee ... comparables for benchmarking assessee's P a g e | 2 Dy. CIT-1(1)(2) Vs. M/s HSBC Professional Services Pvt. Ltd. international transaction of provision of back office support services without considering the fact that its financials were prepared for the year ending on Dec. 31, 2009 whereas that

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8389/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.8389/मुं/2010 (िन.व. 2005-06) Dcit-2(3), Room No.555, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd., Magnet House, 2Nd Floor, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacz 0742 K ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit - Dr "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT - DRFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate
Section 10ASection 244ASection 92C

resource cost already allocated to the US AE Rs.29,90,281/- Amount of Adjustment Rs.63,85,284/- 2.2 Apart from the above adjustments on international transactions, the Assessing Officer inter-alia made following additions while passing assessment order dated 22/12/2008: 4 (i) Exclusion of telecommunication expenses from export turnover while ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 30,67.61.000/- in international transactions with associated enterprises ignoring the fact that the same are not at arm length price and ignoring the material placed on record