Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.166

Section 92CA(3) falls under section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 166 (Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 166 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 92CA(3) is Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (255 ITR 273), cited in 657 of the 702 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 92CA(3)

Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT
255 ITR 273 · 2002 · Supreme Court
657
citing judgments

For the purpose of computing book profits under Section 115J, arrears of depreciation, including those arising from assets working extra shifts, are a necessary charge on profits if debited to the profit and loss account and are allowable as such.

CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.
378 ITR 57 · 2015 · High Court
304
citing judgments

Corporate guarantee fees are subject to transfer pricing rules, and adjustments may be needed to account for differences between corporate guarantees and more liquid bank guarantees when determining arm's length price.

CIT v. Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd.
55 Taxmann.com 523 · 2015 · High Court
273
citing judgments

The interest rate for benchmarking foreign currency loans advanced to Associated Enterprises should be the market-determined rate applicable to the currency of the loan, such as LIBOR for US Dollar loans, rather than a domestic lending rate like the Indian PLR.

CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
339 ITR 632 · 2011 · High Court
218
citing judgments

No substantial question of law arises regarding a subsidy granted for setting up a new industrial unit in a backward area for employment generation, as held by the Bombay High Court. This decision was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court.

DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd.
38 SOT 307 · 2010 · ITAT
179
citing judgments

An assessee is not estopped or precluded from seeking the exclusion of a company from its Transfer Pricing study comparables, even if initially selected, if it can demonstrate valid reasons for non-comparability.

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.

ITO v. Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd.
117 ITD 169 · 2009 · ITAT
151
citing judgments
CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd.
367 ITR 730 · 2014 · High Court
120
citing judgments

This case determines the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for intra-group services and reimbursements, clarifying when charges constitute services warranting a mark-up versus mere pass-through costs. It provides guidance on the circumstances under which an ALP adjustment, including an ALP of 'nil', is appropriate for such transactions.

Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. DCIT
381 ITR 154 · 2016 · High Court
119
citing judgments

Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenditure incurred by an Indian entity directly benefits its own business and cannot be automatically treated as an international transaction for global brand building by associated enterprises without specific statutory provisions or proper analysis.

Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India
2 SCC 536 · 2000 · Reported
117
citing judgments

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which preserves rights and liabilities under repealed statutes, does not automatically apply to a mere omission of a statutory provision unless the omitting enactment specifically provides for it, thereby affecting the continuation of pending proceedings.

Judgments on Section 92CA(3)

Siemens Gamesa Renewable Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITTPA 88/CHNY/2018[214-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.71/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.88/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Dcit Private Limited Corporate Circle-2(1) (Formerly Known As Gamesa Renewable Chennai. बनाम/ Pvt.Ltd. Before That Known As Gamesa Wind Vs. Turbine Pvt.Ltd.) 334, Futura Tech Park, 8Th Floor, Block B Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaccg-6027-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Fca) & Shri Shrenik Chordia (Ca) – Ld.Ar !थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sasi Kumar (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08-09-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013- 14 & 2014-15 Have Identical Facts & Issues. The Appeal For Ay 2013- 14 Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 30-10-2017 Passed By Ld.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Sasi Kumar (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 92C

Nippon Alloys Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2598/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.2598/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Nippon Alloys Ltd………………...................................................……Appellant 23A, N.S. Road, 7Th Floor, Room No.31, Kolkata-700001. [Pan: Aabcn1555D] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sunil Kr. Agrawal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 09, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Agitating Against The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer In The Order Dated 19.10.2019 Passed U/S 143(3)/92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Earlier, Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Had Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On Various Dates. On 27.07.2022, Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Counsel For The Assessee, Submitted That The Assessee Company Has Gone Into Official Liquidation & Official Liquidator Has Been Appointed. Therefore, Vide Order Dated 27.07.2022, It Was Directed To Issue Fresh Notice To Shri Subodh Kr. Agarwal, Official Liquidator & The Case Was

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 178(6)

Verticurl Marketing Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. The Drp -2, Bengaluru

ITTPA 25/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.25/Chny/2021 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S.Verticurl Marketing Private Limited Dcit Tower B, 1St Floor, India Land Tech Park बनाम Corporate Circle-2, Chil Sez Area Keeranatham, Coimbatore. / Vs. Sarvampatti, Coimbatore-641 035. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadcv-2270-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Arati Vissanji (Advocate) – Ld.Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) – Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year(Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi [Ao] U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) R.W.S 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act On 31-03-2021 Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru U/S 144C(5) Dated 26-02-2021. Since The Assessee Carried Out Certain International Transactions With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes), The Same Were 2 It(Tp)A No. 25/Chny/2021

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) – Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C
Section 92CA(3) Income Tax Act (2025: s.166) — Case Laws | BharatTax