Section 92C(3) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 92C(3) is Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (376 ITR 183), cited in 100 of the 66 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 92C(3)

Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
376 ITR 183 · 2015 · High Court
100
citing judgments

For transfer pricing comparability analysis, companies should not be excluded solely based on higher turnover if they are otherwise functionally comparable, unless the turnover difference reflects fundamental functional dissimilarities, brand value, or risk profiles that materially impact profitability.

CIT v. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd.
381 ITR 413 · 2016 · High Court
47
citing judgments

Transfer pricing adjustments must be restricted to international transactions with associated enterprises and cannot be made at the entity level or in respect of transactions with unrelated parties.

6 (Mum.); CIT v. Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd.
142 TTJ 358 · 2011 · ITAT
40
citing judgments

The use of LIBOR is upheld for benchmarking interest on loans/advances to foreign AEs for transfer pricing adjustments, and notional interest on amounts receivable from AEs must be calculated using LIBOR.

CIT v. Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd.
180 Taxmann 87 · 2009 · High Court
40
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for making advertisement films is revenue expenditure if it relates to an ongoing business. However, if the expenditure is for a brand to be used in a business yet to commence, it is capital expenditure.

LI and Fung India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
361 ITR 85 · 2014 · High Court
32
citing judgments

The cost base for applying the operating profit over total cost margin in transfer pricing cannot be broadened to include costs not incurred by the assessee. Tax authorities cannot impute costs incurred by third parties or associated enterprises for computing the assessee's net profit margin.

CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom.) and CIT v. Tara Jewels Exports (P). Ltd.
381 ITR 404 · 2016 · High Court
28
citing judgments

The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) cannot make adjustments to the entire segment of manufacturing activity. Adjustments can only be made to the extent of international transactions and only to the extent of arm's length price.

Cisco Systems (India) (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
50 Taxmann.com 280 · 2014 · ITAT
20
citing judgments
Trib.) and Marubeni-Itochu Steel India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
67 Taxmann.com 52 · 2016 · High Court
6
citing judgments
CIT v. Procter & Gamble Home Products Limited
377 ITR 66 · High Court
5
citing judgments
Vestergaard Asia (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
88 Taxmann.com 313 · 2017 · Reported
5
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 92C(3)

Showing 120 of 66 · Page 1 of 4

Section 92C(3) of the Income Tax Act — Case Laws | BharatTax