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

Continuserve Softech India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.242/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Continuserve Softech India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Prathik Tech Park, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Bengaluru. Sy. No.93/1, Veerasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Hosur Road, Electronic City Phase 1, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaacc 8342 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2593/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 2593/Bang/2019 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Acit, 2015-16 Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, Circle – 2, 2Nd Phase, Industrial Area, Large Taxpayer Unit, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan: Aabct 7374 C 372/Bang/2021 -Do- -Do- 2016-17 200/Bang/2022 -Do- Dcit, Ltu, 2017-18 Circle – 2, Bengaluru. 716/Bang/2022 -Do- Acit, 2018-19 Circle – 7(1)(1), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92Section 92ASection 92F

Iron Mountain Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 307/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.307/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Iron Mountain Services Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Level 10, Citrine Building Bagmane World Circle – 3(1)(1), Technology Centre, 4, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Mahadevpura, Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aahcm 2578 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Chavali Narayanan, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.02.2022 Of National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Information Technology Enabled Services (Ites), To Its Wholly Owned Holding Company. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee & Its Wholly

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92C

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 191/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.191/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Limited, Delhi. 59/2, 1St Floor, Gurudas Heritage, Block-B, 100 Feet Ring Road, Banashankari 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 070. Pan: Aafct 3474 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92Section 92C

Metric Stream Infotech (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92BSection 92C

Amc Cookware (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 429/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.429/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Amc Cookware (India) Private Limited, Vs. Ito, No.1180, 12Th B Main, 1St Cross, Hal 2Nd Ward – 1(1)(1), Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 008. Pan : Aacca 4970 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. P. Srinivas, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 30.03.2022 Passed By The Ito, Ward – 1(1)(1) Of National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1962 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Only Dispute Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Determining The Shortfall In Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of An International Transaction At Rs.2,37,87,122/- & It(Tp)A No.429/Bang/2022 Page 2 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri. K. P. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92

Dy Cti, CC-16(1), Mumbai vs. Shipa Shetty, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 478/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
Section 92A(2)(j)Section 92B

Adarsha Sugama Sangeetha Academy vs. Smt. Vrinda S Rao

WP/33264/2016HC Karnataka01 Aug 2022

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice R. Nataraj

Section 92Section 92(1)

Torrecid India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7076/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit Circle 11(3)(1) Torrecid India Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Plot No.29, 30, 31, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Alindra, Savli Gidc, Vadodara, Vadodara–391775 Mk Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct 4321 M

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neelu Jaggi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92

M/S Denso Kirloskar Industries Pvt.Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 73/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

M/S Te Connectivity India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2680/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92

Emc Software and Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 724/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Emc Software & Services Ito, Vs. India Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 1(3), 112, 113, Akruti Sankul, 2Nd Floor, A – Wing, Room No.205, Opp. Janata Sahakari Bank, Pmt Commercial Complex, Sadashiv Peth, Tilak Road, Shankar-Seth Road, Pune – 411 030. Pune – 411 037. Pan : Aabct 0199 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Gopinath, C.H.V. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gopinath, C.H.V. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92Section 92C

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5, Kolkata vs. Smt Sikha Bagaria

The appeal is allowed and

ITAT/15/2022HC Calcutta16 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

For Respondent: Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Adv

United Breweries Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2569/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92B(1)

Galax E Solutions India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 389/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.389/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Galax E Solutions India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Unit No.4, 8Th Floor, Innovator Block, Itpl, Circle -3(1)(1), Bangalore, Whitefield Road, Bangalore 560 066. Pan : Aabcg 9007 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. C. J. Brito, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit, Dr. Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.5.2021 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2016-2017. 2. The First Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is With Regard To The Correctness Of Determination Of Arm’S Length Price In Respect Of An International Transaction U/S.92 Of The Act. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To It’S Wholly Owned Subsidiary Company In Usa. In Terms Of The Provisions

For Appellant: Shri. C. J. Brito, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited, Ramanagara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 301/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No.301/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Plot No.21 Bidadi Industrial Area, Circle –2, Ltu, Bidadi, Ramanagara, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-562 109. Pan : Aabct 5590 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92

Lenovo (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 452/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.452/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R
Section 143(3)

M/S. Steer Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2071/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Steer Engineering Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, No.290, 4Th Main, 4Th Phase, Circle – 6(1)(2), Peenya Industrial Area, Nagawara, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aabcs 8840 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Mrs. Susan D. George, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144CSection 92(1)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92F

M/S.Tokai Rika Minda India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2327/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2327/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Tokai Rika Minda India The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Plot No.365, Sompura 1St Stage Kiadb Industrial Area Dobbaspet, Nelamangala Taluk Bangalore Rural Dist – 562 111. Pan : Aadct0271C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

M/S Brady Company India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, ground 26 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 790/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 It(Tp)A No.790/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.Brady Company India Private The Income Tax Officer Limited, No.26, Survey No.41 Ward 1(1)(4) V. Bengaluru. Konappana Agrahara Village Begur, Hobli, Electronci City, Phase-Ii, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaccb8163A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals Are At The Instance Of The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-2015. 2. The Reason For Filing Two Appeals For Assessment Year 2014-2015 Is That Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel’S (Drp) Directions (Directions Dated 28.09.2008), The A.O. Passed Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act Dated 15.11.2018. In The Said Assessment Order, The Aggregate Transfer Pricing Adjustment Was Determined At Rs.14,43,51,081. An Appeal Has Been Filed Before The Tribunal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act (Appeal No.It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019). Subsequently, On Application By The Assessee, The Drp Passed Rectification Order Dated

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154