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)

Zf Wind Power Coimbatore Private Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT (OSD) Corporate Circle 1, Coimabtore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITTPA 20/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Honourable Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 20/Chny/2026 यनिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2020-21 Zf Wind Power Coimbatore Private Ltd, V. The Joint Commissioner Of Plot No.3, Aspenpark Infra Sez, Income Tax, (Osd), Annur Road, Kittampalayam & Corporate Circle-1, Karumathampatty Village, Coimbatore. Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641 659. [Pan: Aabch8089G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Ashik Shah, C.A & Ms. Soundariya, C.A. Ld. Ars प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. K. Jayaganesh, Cit Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.11.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, For Assessment Year 2020-21. Grouds Of Appeal General Ground 1. The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Issuing The Impugned Order Without Jurisdiction & In Gross Violation Of Notification No. 113/2022 Dated 13 October 2022 [No. 113/2022/F.No.279/Misc./66/2014- Itj (Pl)/So 4873(E)] Issued By The Central Board Of Direct Taxes & Binding On The Lower Authorities & Hence, The Impugned Order Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Mr. Ashik Shah, C.A & MsFor Respondent: Mr. K. Jayaganesh, CIT
Section 250Section 92C(3)Section 92D