Section 92C(2) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.165

Section 92C(2) falls under section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 165 (Determination of arm’s length price) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 165 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 92C(2) is Aztec Software & Technologies Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (107 ITD 141), cited in 90 of the 356 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 92C(2)

Aztec Software & Technologies Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
107 ITD 141 · 2007 · ITAT
90
citing judgments

OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines can be referred to for resolving transfer pricing disputes in India, even though India is not an OECD member, provided they are consistent with Indian statutory regulations. Availability of exemption under Section 10A does not bar the applicability of Section 92C and 92CA.

Pr.CIT v. B.C. Management Services (P.) Ltd.
89 Taxmann.com 68 · 2018 · High Court
56
citing judgments

Notional interest on delayed payments received from an Associated Enterprise (AE) cannot be treated as part of the income for tax purposes, thereby no question of law arises regarding such adjustments by the TPO/AO.

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.

Smt. Neena Syal v. ACIT
70 ITD 62 · 1999 · ITAT
39
citing judgments

Disallowance of expenses cannot be made if their genuineness is not challenged. For unexplained money, possession of gold jewellery by married ladies up to 500 grams is considered explained.

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.

10, 12 and 17 of Bechtel India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi
85 Taxmann.com 121 · 2017 · High Court
23
citing judgments

Interest on outstanding receivables from associated enterprises is considered an international transaction under Section 92B, requiring separate benchmarking, and is not automatically covered by working capital adjustments.

Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT
350 ITR 94 · 2013 · High Court
20
citing judgments

A new undertaking is not deprived of its status as a separate and distinct entity merely because it is to a certain extent dependent on an existing unit, if the nature of the technology and mechanism of production warrants it.

Schefenacker Motherson Ltd. v. ITO
123 TTJ 509 · 2009 · ITAT
19
citing judgments

The Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) requires the use of net operating profit, not cash profit, for determining Arm's Length Price (ALP), in line with Section 92C and Rule 10B(1) of the Income-tax Act.

West Cost Paper Mills (P.)\nLtd v. CIT
52 Taxmann.com 268 · 2014 · ITAT
19
citing judgments

The ITAT Mumbai, in the case of West Coast Paper Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, concurred with the findings of the CIT(A) concerning deductions under Section 80IA.

Judgments on Section 92C(2)

ACIT, Circle-49(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Alkaloids Corporation, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and cross-objection of the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 383/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.383/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata..............……….........…..........….…… Appellant Vs. M/S Alkaloids Corporation.......….....……........….....…...…..…..... Respondent 8, Bentinch Street, Lal Bazar, Kolkata-700001. [Pan:Aaefa8293P] C.O. 13/Kol/2022 (A/O I.T.A. No.383/Kol/2022) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Alkaloids Corporation ..............……….................….…… Cross-Objector 8, Bentinch Street, Lal Bazar, Kolkata-700001. [Pan:Aaefa8293P] Vs. Acit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.......….....……..….....…....…........... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 09, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 19, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue & Cross- Objection By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.03.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 250Section 92D