Section 92B

Section 92B — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 92B, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• PCIT v Veer Gems High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The TPO says I control the foreign party in substance, so we are associated enterprises. Is de facto control enough under s.92A?
  No. s.92A(1) and s.92A(2) have to be read together. Sub-section (2) is not a list of examples of the participation described in sub-section (1) — it controls what counts as participation, so unless one of its clauses is actually satisfied, de facto or even de jure participation in the capital, management or control of the other enterprise does not make the two enterprises associated enterprises, and the transfer pricing machinery never starts.
• Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt Ltd v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The TPO says my advertising and marketing spend built my foreign parent's brand and has added a mark-up. There is no agreement with the parent about it. Can he do that?
  No. The Delhi High Court held that before Chapter X can be used at all, the Revenue must show an international transaction exists. For advertising, marketing and promotion spend that means showing an agreement, arrangement or understanding with the associated enterprise obliging the Indian company to spend excessively to promote the foreign brand. It cannot be inferred from shareholding, from the incidental benefit to the brand owner, or from the bright line test, which Sony Ericsson had already rejected. There is no machinery provision to identify or price such a transaction. The assessee's appeals were allowed and the Revenue's dismissed.
• CIT v Cotton Naturals (I) P Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I lent dollars to my overseas subsidiary — must the arm's length interest be benchmarked against Indian lending rates because I am the Indian lender?
  No. The Delhi High Court held on 27 March 2015 that the arm's length interest on a loan to an associated enterprise is the market determined rate for the currency in which the loan is to be repaid, not the rate prevailing in the country of residence of either party. The loan here was advanced and repayable in US dollars, so Indian prime lending rates were irrelevant; interest rates on rupee loans reflect the Reserve Bank's policy and say nothing about a dollar debt. The 4 per cent charged by the assessee was upheld, the adjustment to 12.20 per cent set aside, and the same parameters were held to apply to inbound and outbound loans alike.
• Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India P Ltd v CIT High CourtCuts both waysUnder appeal
  The TPO says my advertising spend is higher than comparables and has added the excess as brand building for my foreign parent. Can he do that?
  Not by that route. The bright line test — treating advertising, marketing and promotion spend above a comparable's level as a separate transaction of brand building for the foreign associated enterprise — has no statutory mandate, and the parameters the Special Bench laid down in L.G. Electronics do not bind either side. The Delhi High Court set the Tribunal's approach aside as based on an erroneous legal standard and sent the matters back for fresh consideration.
• Shell India Markets P Ltd v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The TPO says we issued shares to our parent too cheaply. Can he tax the shortfall?
  No. The issue of equity to a non-resident parent is on capital account and gives rise to no income, and Chapter X is machinery for computing income at arm's length, not a charge. With no income there is nothing for the transfer pricing machinery to work on, and re-characterising the alleged shortfall as an interest-bearing loan has no statutory foundation.
• Vodafone India Services P Ltd v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  We issued shares to our foreign parent at a premium the Transfer Pricing Officer says is too low. Can he tax the shortfall as income under the transfer pricing provisions?
  No. The Bombay High Court held that the issue of equity shares at a premium by an Indian company to its non-resident holding company is a capital account transaction that gives rise to no income, so Chapter X cannot be applied at all. Chapter X is a machinery provision for arriving at the arm's length price; the charge must be found in sections 4 and 5 and in one of the heads of income. There being no charge, express or implied, on the premium not received, the reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer, his order, the draft assessment order and the Dispute Resolution Panel's order were quashed as without jurisdiction.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.