The Assessee, a film actor, acted as brand ambassador for Jaipur IPL Team. RK (Husband of the assessee) made a decision to buy shares of EMHSL, Mauritius through a company Kuki Investments and accordingly, a share purchase agreement [SPA] was entered into on 2-2-2009 between (RK) (Husband), the assessee, EMHSL (Mauritius) and Kuki. Although the assessee was neither a buyer nor a seller of shares but still she was a signatory to the agreement and the said agreement bind her to render certain services without any charge to 100 per cent subsidiary of EMSHL, Mauritius i.e., JIPL by virtue of the fact that her husband, through his intermediary company got the shares of EMSHL, Mauritius. AO  held that the assessee and EMHSL were Associated Enterprises [AE] within the meaning of section 92A(1) and the services rendered by the assessee to JIPL was an international transaction within the meaning of section 92B which was to be benchmarked on the principle of Arm’s Length Price [ALP]. The Tribunal in assessee’s own case for 2010-11 held that section 92A(2)(J) deems the two ‘enterprises’ as AE if one of the enterprises is controlled by an individual and the other ‘enterprise’ is controlled by such individual or his relatives. The Department did not submit as to how that individual (i.e. RK) or his relative controlled the other ‘enterprise’ (i.e. assessee). Without satisfying the second limb, i.e. that individual or his relative controlled the other enterprise, provisions of section 92A(2)(j) cannot be applied. Section 92B(2) cannot be applied to hold that transaction between assessee and JICPL was an ‘international transaction’ as neither any of the parties to the SPA were an AE of the assessee nor JICPL entered into a prior agreement with the AE of the assessee (JICPL was not a party to the SPA); and as such the pre-requisite of a prior agreement between a non-AE with the AE of an assessee is not fulfilled. Further it held that Chapter pre-supposes the existence of ‘income’ and lays down machinery provision to compute ALP of such income, if it arises from an ‘international transaction’. Section 92 is not an independent charging section to bring in a new head of income or to charge tax on income which is otherwise not chargeable under the Act. No income had accrued to or received by the assessee under section 5, no notional income can be brought to tax under section 92. (AY. 2011-12)