Section 92B of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.163

Section 92B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 163 (Meaning of international transaction) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 163 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 92B is CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (128 ITR 294), cited in 628 of the 1,158 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 92B

CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty
128 ITR 294 · 1981 · Supreme Court
628
citing judgments

When the cost of acquisition of a capital asset cannot be determined, the computation mechanism for capital gains fails, and thus no capital gains can be charged. This establishes a broader principle that a charging section cannot operate in the absence of specific machinery provisions for computation.

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
374 ITR 118 · 2015 · High Court
499
citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction for Advertising and Marketing Promotion (AMP) expenditure requires the revenue to discharge the burden of proof. An explanation inserted under Section 92B does not automatically make AMP expenditure an international transaction.

CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.
378 ITR 57 · 2015 · High Court
304
citing judgments

Corporate guarantee fees are subject to transfer pricing rules, and adjustments may be needed to account for differences between corporate guarantees and more liquid bank guarantees when determining arm's length price.

CIT v. Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd.
55 Taxmann.com 523 · 2015 · High Court
273
citing judgments

The interest rate for benchmarking foreign currency loans advanced to Associated Enterprises should be the market-determined rate applicable to the currency of the loan, such as LIBOR for US Dollar loans, rather than a domestic lending rate like the Indian PLR.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT
381 ITR 117 · 2016 · High Court
220
citing judgments

The Bright Line Test (BLT) is not a recognized method under the Income-tax Act and Rules for benchmarking advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses or for determining the existence of an international transaction or its Arm's Length Price. The Revenue must first establish the existence and price of an international transaction before seeking an ALP adjustment.

PCIT v. Redington (India) Ltd.
430 ITR 298 · 2021 · High Court
132
citing judgments

A corporate guarantee issued to Associated Enterprises (AEs) is an international transaction under Section 92B, requiring adjustments for guarantee commission due to inherent risk. The reasonable arm's length rate for benchmarking such corporate guarantees can be determined using internal or external comparable uncontrolled prices.

Bausch & Lomb Eye Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional CIT
381 ITR 227 · 2016 · High Court
127
citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction must be established before its arm's length price can be determined. An alleged 'excessive' AMP expenditure cannot unilaterally expand the scope of an international transaction if its existence is contested.

Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. DCIT
381 ITR 154 · 2016 · High Court
119
citing judgments

Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenditure incurred by an Indian entity directly benefits its own business and cannot be automatically treated as an international transaction for global brand building by associated enterprises without specific statutory provisions or proper analysis.

CIT v. Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd.
56 Taxmann.com 206 · 2015 · High Court
119
citing judgments

When determining the arm's length price for interest on a foreign currency loan advanced to an Associated Enterprise, the Indian Prime Lending Rate is not applicable. Instead, the interest rate should be benchmarked based on the prevailing foreign currency rate, such as EURIBOR, or the rate in the country where the loan is received/consumed.

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
140 ITD 41 · 2013 · ITAT
107
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer or Transfer Pricing Officer can benchmark Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenses as an international transaction if it creates or is intended to create economic or commercial benefit for an associated enterprise. The 'bright line' method can be used for this purpose.

Judgments on Section 92B

Bristol-Myers Squibb India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 6(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5157/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5157/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Bristol-Myers Squibb India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-6(1) बिाम/ Indiabulls Finance Centre Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Tower-1, Senapati Bapat Marg Vs. Elphinstone West, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-4313-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5035Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-6(1) Bristol-Myers Squibb India Pvt. Ltd. बिाम/ Mumbai. Indiabulls Finance Centre 6Th Floor, Tower-1, Senapati Bapat Marg Vs. Elphinstone West, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-4313-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir Mistri-Ld. Sr. Counsel प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sunil Deshpande & Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra-Ld.Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 09/06/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 01/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri-Ld. Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande & Shri Sushil
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 92Section 92BSection 92F

Onward Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’ appeal stand partly allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 266/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.266/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1785/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Onward Technologies Limited Dcit-7(1) Sterling Centre, 2Nd Floor Room No.622, 6Th Floor बिाम/ Dr. Annie Besant Road Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-3742-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1793/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit-7(1) Onward Technologies Limited Room No.622, 6Th Floor बिाम/ Sterling Centre, 2Nd Floor Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Dr. Annie Besant Road Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 018 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-3742-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : S/Shri J.P. Bairagra & Ashish Bairagra - Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Manpreet S. Duggal- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 23/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: S/Shri J.P. Bairagra & Ashish Bairagra - Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet S. Duggal- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 92Section 92B