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)

Infor (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and stay application is dismissed

ITA 1689/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1689/Hyd/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा /Asst. Year: 2015-16) M/S. Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Block-B, Q-City, Survey No. 109, 110, Hyderabad. 111/2, Nanakramguda (Vs.), Serilingampally (M), R.R. District, Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacb 6197 Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent Stay Application No.98/Hyd/2020 (Arsing Out Of I.T.A. No.1689/Hyd/2019) (धििाारण वर्ा /Asst. Year: 2015-16) M/S. Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Acit, Circle-2(1), Block-B, Q-City, Survey No. 109, 110, Hyderabad. 111/2, Nanakramguda (Vs.), Serilingampally (M), R.R. District, Hyderabad (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sunil M. Lala, Ar. प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Srinivas Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2020

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 143(3)

DCIT, Circle - 11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Wacker Metroark Chemicals Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1087/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ward-11(2), Kolkata………..........…….…….....…....Appellant Vs. M/S. Wacker Metroark Chemicals Private Limited.................................……………..…......Respondent Block-Bn, Plot-7 Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aaacw 2192 G] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri R.N. Dutt, Advocate & Ms. Sutapa Roy Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 25Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 11Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 26/02/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset We Find That There Is A Delay Of 1 (One) Day In Filing Of This Appeal By The Revenue. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Department Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal On Time. Hence The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C