Section 92 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.161

Section 92 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is Adobe Systems Inc. v. ADIT (203 Taxmann 554), cited in 59 of the 434 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 92

Adobe Systems Inc. v. ADIT
203 Taxmann 554 · 2011 · High Court
59
citing judgments

A fixed place of business constitutes a Permanent Establishment (PE) under Article 5(1) of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement only if the premises are actually at the disposal of the foreign enterprise, thereby satisfying the crucial 'disposal test', and it is through this fixed place that the foreign enterprise carries on its business, wholly or partly.

Delloite Consulting India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT/ITO
137 ITD 21 · 2012 · ITAT
42
citing judgments

The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) is empowered to determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of an international transaction at "nil" if the assessee fails to establish that payments made to an Associated Enterprise (AE) were commensurate with the benefit received or the quality of services availed. This determination constitutes an adjustment to ALP, distinct from a disallowance of expenditure.

Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIT (International Taxation)
80 Taxmann.com 347 · 2017 · Supreme Court
16
citing judgments

For a place to constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE), it must be at the 'disposal' of the enterprise, and the business must be carried on through that place.

Asstt. CIT v. D. Navinchandra Exports (P.) Ltd.
87 Taxmann.com 306 · 2017 · Reported
14
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271G cannot be imposed for failure to furnish segment-wise details of related and non-related party transactions in the diamond industry due to practical difficulties.

NXP India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
116 Taxmann.com 421 · 2020 · ITAT
12
citing judgments

A company that is functionally dissimilar to the assessee and has been excluded in similar cases of other assessees should be excluded from the list of comparable companies for the purpose of determining the arm's length price.

Hughes Systique India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
36 Taxmann.com 41 · 2013 · High Court
11
citing judgments

The Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method is the most direct method for determining the arm's length price of international transactions and should be preferred over other profit-based methods.

Progress Rail Locomotive Inc. v. DCIT
466 ITR 76 · 2024 · High Court
8
citing judgments
Trib), Deloitte Consulting India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
52 Taxmann.com 19 · 2014 · ITAT
8
citing judgments
Knorr-Bremse India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
236 Taxmann 318 · 2015 · High Court
8
citing judgments
Clear Plus India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
10 Taxmann.com 249 · 2011 · High Court
7
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 92

Ebaotech India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result , appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 549/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.549/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. Ebaotech India Pvt. Dcit 5(1) Ltd., R.No. 525, Housefin Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Sunteck Certainity M.K Road Suit No. 801, 8 Th Floor, Mumbai 400020 C-21, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400051 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aabce7013R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Satish R. Mody Revenue By : Shri. Manoj Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 549/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 20.08.2015 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 22.03.2013 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.549/Mum/2016

For Appellant: Shri. Satish R. ModyFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92