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

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 103/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

M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2695/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2695/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Vs. The Acit, Private Limited, Circle - 4(1)(2), [Formerly Known As Misys Software Solutions Bengaluru. (India) Pvt. Ltd.,], 4Th To 6Th Floor, North Tower, Virgo Building, Bagmane Constellation, Bengaluru – 500 037. Pan : Aaack 9067 G Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Arunkumar, Cit(Tp-2)(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 06.10.2017 Of Acit, Circle – 4(1)(2), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2013-2014. 2. The Issue That Arises For Consideration In The Above Appeal Pertains To The Aggregate Transfer Pricing Adjustment (“Tp Adjustment”) Of Rs.14,33,66,140/- Made By The Transfer Pricing Officer (‘The Tpo’ For Short) Towards The International Transactions Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Rs.13,56,24,957/-) & Information Technology Enabled Services

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Arunkumar, CIT(TP-2)(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92

M/S Centum Rakon India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1964/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiita. No. 1964/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Rakon India Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of #12, Khb Industrial Area, Income Tax, Yelahanka New Town, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 106. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadcc2533L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit Respondent By : (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.11.2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 14/07/2017 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Bangalore-2 For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Determining The Alp Of International Transaction At Rs. 32,77,99,833 /- 3. Comparables: 3.1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Choosing M/S. Valiant Communication Ltd As A Comparable Entity Ignoring The Fact That M/S. Valiant Communication

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: (DR)