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

Comverse Network Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 6334/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon M/S. Comverse Network Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Dlf Infinity Tower-A, 2Nd Floor, Dlf Cyber City Phase-Ii, Gurgaon Pan : Aabcc3425B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. G.C. Srivastava & Daksh Bhardwaj, Advocates Respondent By Sh. T.M. Shiva Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 23/10/2012 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) , In Compliance To The Direction Of The Dispute Resolution Panel ( Drp) , Under Section 143 (3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’), In Respect Of Assessment Year 2008-09 Raising Following Grounds: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ao") Has Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) After Considering The Adjustments Proposed By The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (“Tpo”) In His Order Passed Under Section 92Ca(3) Of The Act & Subsequently Confirmed By The Hon’Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (“Drp”).

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92F