Section 92(3) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.161

Section 92(3) falls under section 92 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 161 (Computation of income from international transaction and Specified domestic Transaction having regard to arm’s length price) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 161 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 92(3) is Mercer Consulting India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (72 Taxmann.com 323), cited in 3 of the 33 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 92(3)

Mercer Consulting India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
72 Taxmann.com 323 · 2016 · Reported
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 92(3)

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Omniglobe Information Technologies (I) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

ITA 1380/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Ward 19 (1), Vs. M/S. Omniglobe Information Technologies New Delhi. (I) Pvt. Ltd., E – 11, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi – 110 027. (Pan : Aaaco6606M) (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate Shri Abhishek Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Ms. Nimita Pandey, Senior Dr

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144C

DCIT, Cir-11, Kolkata vs. M/S Sika India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and in appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 402/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

Sika India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and in appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 393/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. M/S U E Development India Pvt Ltd

ITA/953/2017HC Karnataka21 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260Section 92

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Ue Development India Pvt Ltd

ITA/52/2014HC Karnataka12 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260Section 92Section 92(3)

Comm Vault Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 343/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahm/S. Comm Vault Systems Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income (India) Private Limited Tax, Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccc 3708 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234DSection 271(1)(C)Section 92C

M/S.Filtrex Technologies Private Ltd., Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 469/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos.469/Bang/2017 (Asst. Year – 2012-13) M/S Filtrex Technologies Pvt. Ltd., #36/4, Raghavendra Nagar, Near Ring Road, 4Th Cross, Hrbr Layout, Bangalore. Pan – Aaacf4091P. …..Appellant Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-(3)(1), Bengaluru. …. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Padmchand Khincha, C.A Respondent By : Shri C.H Sundar Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08-03-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-04-2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Padmchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.H Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92

M/S. Csr Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1895/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri G.C. Srivastava, DivyanshuFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 92C

Commissioner of Income Tax Faridabad vs. M/S Mercer Consulting India Pvt Ltd

ITA/101/2015HC Punjab & Haryana24 Aug 2016
Section 10ASection 144Section 92

Mercer India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1085/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2016AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 92(3)

DCIT, Pondicherry vs. Tweezerman (India) Pvt. Ltd., Pondicherry

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2401/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, CITFor Respondent: Sh. B. Ramakrishnan, C.A
Section 10BSection 92Section 92(3)Section 92C

M/S. Fujifilm India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee stands statistically allowed

ITA 6916/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

ITA/16/2014HC Delhi16 Mar 2015