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

Shri Satyaveer Singh, Bharatpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Wadr-1, Bharatpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 975/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 975/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 Satyaveer Singh, Cuke I.T.O., S/O- Sh. Roop Singh, Vill-Barso, Vs. Ward-1, Bharatpur (Raj)-321001. Bharatpur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Cmbps 4345 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashish Sharma (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Alwar Dated 28/03/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That The Notice Issued U/S 147 Is Per Se Illegal, Arbitrary & Ab-Initio Void & Invalid & Therefore Deserve To Be Quashed & Annulled. 2. That The Assessment Order Dated 26/12/2017 Is Per Se Illegal & Invalid. 3. That The A.O. & Cit(A), Alwar Has Grossly Erred In Treating The Amount Of Rs. 12,22,000/- As Unexplained Money & Making An Addition Of Rs. 12,22,000/- U/S 69A..”

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai vs. J.M. Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is dismissed

ITA 1582/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Vatsalya SaxenaFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Lala

Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is dismissed

ITA 1164/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Vatsalya SaxenaFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Lala

M/S. Waters (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are partly allowed

ITA 2617/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.2616/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.2617/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Waters (India) Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner Of No.36A, 2Nd Phase, Income-Tax, Circle 12(5) V. Bangalore. Peenya Industrial Area Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aaacw1411C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt.G.Vaidehi, Adovcate Respondent By : Sri.Priyardarshi Mishra, Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 01.10.2021 Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 30.10.2019. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2010-2011 & 2011-2012. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Smt.G.Vaidehi, AdovcateFor Respondent: Sri.Priyardarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40

M/S. Waters (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 12(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are partly allowed

ITA 2616/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.2616/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.2617/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Waters (India) Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner Of No.36A, 2Nd Phase, Income-Tax, Circle 12(5) V. Bangalore. Peenya Industrial Area Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aaacw1411C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt.G.Vaidehi, Adovcate Respondent By : Sri.Priyardarshi Mishra, Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 01.10.2021 Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 30.10.2019. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2010-2011 & 2011-2012. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Smt.G.Vaidehi, AdovcateFor Respondent: Sri.Priyardarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40

Cpa Global Support Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6815/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surenderpal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 274Section 92Section 92C

DCIT CC 44, Mumbai vs. Sopariwala Exports, Mumbai

ITA 3039/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2021AY 2007-08
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.3559/Del

ITA 3559/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: And Shri Ashish Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshreshtha
Section 132Section 153A

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.3559/Del

ITA 3558/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: And Shri Ashish Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshreshtha
Section 132Section 153A

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Lam Research (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 468/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92

Lam Research (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 405/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92

M/S Fidelity Business Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2848/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2848/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pinehurst, Embassy Golf Links Business Park, Circle – 3(1)(1), Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaacf 6175 E Assessee By : Shri. G. C. Srivastava, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 25.10.2017 Passed By The Dcit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bengaluru, Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General In Nature & Requires No Specific Adjudication. Ground Nos. 2 To 18 Raised By The Assessee Are In Relation To The Addition Made Consequent To Determination Of Arm’S Length Price (Alp) In Respect Of International Transaction Of Rendering Of Software Development Services By The Assessee To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) In Terms Of Section 92 Of The Act. At The Time Of Hearing, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Made A Submission That The Assessee’S Ae Based In Usa Had Applied For Resolution Of It(Tp)A No.2848/Bang/2017 Page 2 Of 3 The Dispute Under The Mutual Agreement Procedure (Map) With The Competent Authorities Of Usa & Govt. Of India. Consequent To The Aforesaid Request, The Dispute Has Been Resolved Between The Assessee & The Department. A Copy Of The Letter Of The Cbdt Dated 16.06.2021 Is Also Filed Before Us. In The Light Of The Resolution Of Disputes Under Map, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Prayed That Grounds 2 To 18 May Be Dismissed As Not Pressed. Accordingly, These Grounds Are Dismissed As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri. G. C. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92

M/S. Flint Group India Private Limited, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2750/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2750/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Flint Group India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Plot#2, Shiv Indl. Infrastructure Park, Circle -3(1)(1), Nirma Canal Road, Bengaluru. Lamdapura – 391 775 Ta Savil, District – Vododara, Gujarat. Pan : Aaaci 5639 L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Tanmayee, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr-Iii)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of The Assessment Dated 27.10.2017 Passed By The Dcit, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru, U/S.143(3) Read With Sec.144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

For Appellant: Shri. Tanmayee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR-III)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92(1)Section 92C

M/S. Mondon Investments Ltd., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3303/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 234A

M/S Global E-Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3379/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3379/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Global E-Business Operations (P) Ltd., Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Kalyani Platina, Phase 2 Building, Income Tax, Survey No.1, 24, Kundanhalli Village, Special Range – 3, K. R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aabcg 2843 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sharath Rao, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2021

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92

Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2968/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1594/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Haier Appliances (India) Pvt. Ward-11(1), Ltd., Building No. 1, Okhla Phase- New Delhi Iii, Near Modi Mill, New Delhi (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch3162L

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92Section 92B

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Haier Appliances (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1594/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1594/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Haier Appliances (India) Pvt. Ward-11(1), Ltd., Building No. 1, Okhla Phase- New Delhi Iii, Near Modi Mill, New Delhi (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch3162L

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92Section 92B

M/S Exide Life Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 839/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Exide Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.3/1, Jp Technopark Millers Road, Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 001. Circle – 2(1)(2), Pan : Aaaci 7940 L Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Surya Narayana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.02.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The First Issue That Requires Adjudication In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Cit(A) Was Justified In Upholding The Order Of The Ao In Determining The Alp Of The International Transaction Pertaining To Payment For Intra Group Services As Nil Against A Sum Of Rs.4,06,89,430/- Claimed By The Assessee To Have Been Paid To The Ae & Adding The Sum Of Rs.4,06,89,430/- As Income Of The Assessee Under Section 92 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). Page 2 Of 13 3. The Facts With Regard To The Aforesaid Issue Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 92

J Ray Mcdermott Engineering Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 3239/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3239/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. J Ray Mcdermott Engineering Income Tax, Services Pvt. Ltd. Rmz Millenia Business Park, 6Th Corporate Circle-2(2) 512, Wanaparthy Block, Floor, Campus 3B, No.143, Chennai-34. Dr.Mgr Road, Kandanchavady, Chennai-600 096. Pan: Aabcj 6787H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92

M/S.Asm Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 66/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.66/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Asm Technologies Ltd., Vs. Dcit, No.80/2, Lusanne Court, Circle – 1(1)(2), Richmond Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 025. Pan : Aabca 4362 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C