Section 92F of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 92F is Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT (381 ITR 117), cited in 220 of the 178 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 92F

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.

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. ITC Ltd.
236 Taxmann 612 · 2016 · High Court
108
citing judgments

When computing deduction under Section 80IA, specifically for inter-unit transfer of power, the benefit cannot be claimed based on rates chargeable by distribution licensees to consumers. The deduction must be computed based on the rate fixed by the Tariff Regulation Commission for sale by electricity generating companies.

CIT v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd.
157 Taxmann.com 207 · 2023 · Supreme Court
58
citing judgments

For Section 80IA deductions, the market value of electricity supplied by a captive power plant (eligible unit) to its industrial unit (non-eligible unit) must be computed by comparing prices in the open market and those charged by State Electricity Boards to industrial consumers.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gujarat Alkalies Chemicals Limited
395 ITR 247 · 2017 · High Court
49
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 80IA is allowable for captive power generation. The price for calculating this deduction is the rate at which the electricity board supplies power to its consumers, rather than the rate at which power generating companies supply to the electricity board.

CIT v. Kikani Exports (P.) Ltd.
369 ITR 96 · 2014 · High Court
43
citing judgments

Commission paid to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India as income not accruing or arising in India and not being fees for technical services. Consequently, no tax deduction at source under Section 195 is required, and non-deduction does not attract disallowance under Section 40(a)(i)/(ia).

381 ITR 154; Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT
283 CTR 322 · 2016 · High Court
22
citing judgments

The Delhi High Court holds that expenditure on Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) by a taxpayer is not an international transaction under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, adjustments for AMP expenses in transfer pricing cannot be made without specific statutory provisions.

CIT v. Star Paper Mills Ltd.
172 Taxmann.com 391 · 2025 · High Court
21
citing judgments

The transfer price for intra-group services, specifically the sale of power from a captive power plant to a manufacturing unit, can be benchmarked based on the price at which the manufacturing unit procures power from the State Electricity Board, especially when it reflects a reasonable and arm's length price.

DCIT v. Peerless General Finance & Investment & Co. Ltd.
112 Taxmann.com 410 · 2019 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Deductions under Section 80G are permissible even when CSR expenditure is disallowed under Section 37(1). The Tribunal upholds the CIT(A)'s order allowing the Section 80G deduction based on prior decisions.

Judgments on Section 92F

ACIT (Cir.) - 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhandar Power Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1908/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Bhandar Power Ltd. Income Tax, 14Th Floor, Essar House, Circle 6(1)(2), 11, K. K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400034 (Pan: Aaacb6693B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, Fca & Shri Tarang Mehta, Advocate Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order Dated 25.01.2018 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito 6(1)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 20.12.2016, For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Income Tax Act Of Rs. 203,13,43,740/-Without Considering The Fact That The Provisions Of Section 801A(10) Is Clearly Attracted In This Case Hence The Assessee Is Not Eligible For Claiming Deduction U/S 801A Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, FCA and Shri Tarang Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 801A(10)Section 80I

DCIT Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai, Air India vs. Aarti Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4869/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawaldy. Cit, Central Circle-3(2) Aarti Industries Limited R. No. 1913, 19Th Floor, 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Mulund Goregaon Link Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080 Pan/Gir No. Aabca 2787 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue, Against The Order Dated 30.10.2023 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. 2. Ground No. 1 In The Appeal Reads As Under: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowances Made By The A.O. To Restrict The Deduction U/S. 80Ia Of The Act Despite The Fact That The Issue Has Not Attained Finality & Pending For Adjudication Before The Hon'Ble Supreme Court? – Rs.396,81,798/- 3. Briefly The Facts Are, The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity Engaged In Manufacturing & Sale Of Chemicals, Fertilizers & Intermediaries. For Such Manufacturing Activity, The Assessee Has Set Up A Plant At Plot No. 801/23, Gidc, Phase-Iii

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 133(6)Section 80I

Sutherland Global Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITTPA 21/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.It(Tp)A No.: 21/Chny/2023 धनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sutherland Global Services Private The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd, Vs. Income Tax, Gateway Office Parks, Central Circle 3(3), 2Nd Floor, Building B2, Chennai. No.16, G.S.T Road, Perungalathur, Chennai, – 600 063. [Pan: Aaecs-8093-A] प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Vijay Mehta, C.A., Mr. Harsh Bafna, C.A & Ms. Asmita Desouza, C.A. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No. Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2022-23/1048599548(1) Dated 10.01.2023 Of The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Years 2017-18 Passed In Compliance To Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru Vide Order Dated 29.12.2022. 2. The Assessee Had Broadly Raised Grounds Of Appeal For 5 Transfer Pricing Issues & 1 Corporate Tax Issue. The Ld.Ar For The Assessee Submitted That, Subsequently, The Assessee Had Preferred Map Proceedings For Redressal Of Its Issues. Accordingly, In Consonance With The Relief Obtained Through Map Proceedings The Assessee Has Modified Its Grounds Of Appeal Through Its Letters Dated 08.04.2025 R.W.17.04.2025. Further, The Assessee Had Also Filed

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT