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

DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rolls Royce Marine India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 1035/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1035/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Cit-15(3)(1) M/S. Rolls Royce Marine India Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Room No.451, Floor, Aayakar Plot No.D-505, Ttc Industrial Area, Vs. Bhavan,M.K. Road, Midc Turbhe,Navi Mumbai-400 703. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaacu 4687 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N.K. Chand Assessee By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Ms. Radhika Thakkar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03.05.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.05.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Directions,Dt. 14.11.2014 Of The Dispute Regulation Panel- Ii, Mumbai The Ao Has Filed The Present Appeal ,Raising Two Effective Grounds Of Appeal.The Assessee Is A Part Of Rolls-Royce Group Which Operates In 4 Global Markets Namely Civil-Aerospace, Defence-Aerospace, Marine & Energy.It Is Part Of The Marine Division Of The Group.The Group Offers A Product Portfolio Ranging From Vessel Design & Gas Turbine Engines To Water Jets & Deck Handling Equipment.The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Marketing, Sales Support, Co- Ordination & Allied Services To Its Group. It Also Provides Assembling & Delivery Management Support Services To Its Group In India & Also Provides After Sales Services.

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Ms. Radhika ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 254(1)Section 92

Ac Nielesen Org-Marg P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 8799/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./8799/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Nielsen (India) Private Limited Addl. Range-6(1) Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, M.K.Marg (Formerly Known As M/S. Acnielson Org- Marg Private Limited) Mumbai-400 020. 6Th Floor, Block C, Godrej It Park, 02 Vs. Godrej Business District, Lbs Marg, Phirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai-400 079. Pan:Aaacm 9279 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N.K. Chand Assessee By: S/Shri Saurabh Soparkar & Bandish Soparkar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.05.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Order Dated 24.10.2011 Of The Assessing Officer (Ao), Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C (13) Of The Act,The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.During The Course Of Hearing Before Us, The Authorised Representative (Ar)Stated That The Assessee Was Not Interested In Pursuing Ground Number Six, Considering The Smallness Of The Tax Effect.Therefore, Same Stands Dismissed As Not Pressed. 2.Assessee-Company Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Valcon, Which Is Part Of The Ac Nielsen Group. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing Customised Market Research Services Including Quantitative & Qualitative Consumer Studies, Print Media Measurement Services & Retail Measurement Services Which Includes Retail Tracking, Modeling & Analytics & Category Manage - Ment.It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29/10/2007, Declaring Total Income At Rs. 18.12 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment On 24/10/2011,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 33.77 Crores.

For Appellant: S/Shri Saurabh Soparkar & Bandish SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254(1)Section 92

Hapag Lloyd India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 427/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./427/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 20011-12 Hapag-Lloyd India Private Limited Dy. Cit-7(1)(2), Room No.130, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1121 & 1122, Solitaire Corporate Park Building No.11, 2Nd Floor, Chakala, Vs. M.K. Road Andheri East,Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 020. Pan: Aabch 7319 B Revenue By:Shri N.K. Chand Assessee By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02.05.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 02.05.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Order,Dated 31.12.2015,Of The Assessing Officer(Ao),Passed U/S.143 (3)R.W.S.144C (13) Of The Act,The Assessee Has Filed Various Grounds Of Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Providing Business Support Services To Its Parent Company In The Form Of Assisting In Booking Of Shipments, Freight Collection, Transportation Of Containers Etc.,Filed Its Return Of Income On Declaring Income Of Rs.4,58,57,900 /-.The Ao Made A Reference To The Transfer Pricing Officer(Tpo)To Determine The Arm’S Length Price(Alp)Of The International Transaction,Entered Into By It With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes),As Per The Provisions Of Section 92 Of The Act.Finally,He Made An Adjustment Of Rs.68,56,53,420/-To The Total Income Of The Assessee For The Service Rendered Under The Head ‘Business Support Services’.

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar JainFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 131Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 254(1)Section 92