Section 92C(3) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.165

Section 92C(3) 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(3) is Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (376 ITR 183), cited in 170 of the 176 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 92C(3)

Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
376 ITR 183 · 2015 · High Court
170
citing judgments

For transfer pricing comparability analysis, companies should not be excluded solely based on higher turnover if they are otherwise functionally comparable, unless the turnover difference reflects fundamental functional dissimilarities, brand value, or risk profiles that materially impact profitability.

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.

6 (Mum.); CIT v. Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd.
142 TTJ 358 · 2011 · ITAT
40
citing judgments

The use of LIBOR is upheld for benchmarking interest on loans/advances to foreign AEs for transfer pricing adjustments, and notional interest on amounts receivable from AEs must be calculated using LIBOR.

CIT v. Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd.
180 Taxmann 87 · 2009 · High Court
40
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for making advertisement films is revenue expenditure if it relates to an ongoing business. However, if the expenditure is for a brand to be used in a business yet to commence, it is capital expenditure.

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.

Cisco Systems (India) (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
50 Taxmann.com 280 · 2014 · ITAT
20
citing judgments

Companies engaged in different activities, such as skill development, tourism research, and environment, are considered functionally different and not comparable to the assessee. Headcount is an appropriate allocation key for common indirect expenses within various business segments.

Trib.) and Marubeni-Itochu Steel India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
67 Taxmann.com 52 · 2016 · High Court
6
citing judgments
CIT v. Procter & Gamble Home Products Limited
377 ITR 66 · High Court
5
citing judgments
Vestergaard Asia (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
88 Taxmann.com 313 · 2017 · Reported
5
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 92C(3)

Caterpillar India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai

Appeal is dismissed

ITTPA 42/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 42/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.Caterpillar India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Income Tax, Taramani Road, Vs. Central Circle- 3(3), Chennai – 600 113. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Aabcc-4615-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 717/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S.Caterpillar India Private Tax, Limited, 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle- 3(3), V. Chennai – 600 034. Taramani Road, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan:Aabcc-4615-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Harish Ramanathan, C.A. By Virtual ""थ" की ओर से/Department By : Shri A. Sasikumar, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Arising Out Of Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Dated 07.03.2023. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For :-2-: It(Tp) A. No:42 /Chny/2023 & The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Harish Ramanathan, C.A. by VirtualFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D