Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.166

Section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. (345 ITR 241), cited in 422 of the 3,978 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 92CA

CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.
345 ITR 241 · 2012 · High Court
422
citing judgments

Transfer pricing adjustments for outstanding receivables are permissible only if the Tax Officer establishes, through analysis over a period, a pattern indicating an international transaction intended to benefit an associated enterprise. The Tax Officer cannot question purely business decisions like royalty payments or exceed jurisdiction by applying cost-benefit analysis to determine the arm's length price of services.

CIT v. Sterling Foods
237 ITR 579 · 1999 · Supreme Court
311
citing judgments

Income eligible for profit-linked deductions under sections like 80-IC or 10B must have a direct nexus to the eligible business activity or be derived from the industrial undertaking itself, and not merely attributable to it or arising from a post-manufacturing event.

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.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd.
445 ITR 537 · 2022 · High Court
269
citing judgments

The time limit for the Assessing Officer to pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) following directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel is determined by the specific provisions of Section 153, particularly Section 153(2A).

Shelf Drilling 4. In ACIT (International Taxation) v. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd.
177 Taxmann.com 262 · 2025 · Supreme Court
216
citing judgments

The Supreme Court has not reached a majority verdict on whether the time spent in Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) proceedings under Section 144C should be included within the overall limitation period prescribed by Section 153(3). Consequently, the legal position on the interplay between Sections 144C and 153 remains unresolved at the Supreme Court level.

CIT v. Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd.
147 Taxmann.com 224 · 2023 · Supreme Court
178
citing judgments

The grant of special leave by the Supreme Court signifies that an issue is admitted for final adjudication, and the correctness of the High Court's judgment is under scrutiny. The order granting leave does not affirm the High Court's view nor declare law; consequently, the High Court judgment loses its finality.

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.

Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. v. ACIT\n(Intl. Taxation)
153 Taxmann.com 162 · 2023 · High Court
169
citing judgments

The time consumed in proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144C must be subsumed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 153 for the completion of assessment, meaning these timelines are not mutually exclusive.

Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain
259 ITR 449 · 2003 · Supreme Court
147
citing judgments

Section 144C(4) uses a non-obstante clause to expedite the final assessment order, requiring the Assessing Officer to pass it immediately upon acceptance or lack of objection to the TPO's order, irrespective of broader time limits under Section 153.

CIT v. Faizan Shoes (P.) Ltd.
367 ITR 155 · 2014 · High Court
139
citing judgments

Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source on export agency commission paid to a non-resident does not apply if the non-resident's income is not taxable in India under section 9(1), such as when the agent operates outside India without a permanent establishment or business connection in India.

Judgments on Section 92CA

Doowon Automotive Systems India Private Limited, Knacheepuram vs. ACIT (OSD) Corporate Range 1, Chennai

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

ITA 3061/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3061/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Doowon Automotive Systems The Assistant Commissioner Of India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. B-19 & 20, Vs. Income Tax (Osd), Sipcot Industrial Park, Oragadam, Corporate Range – 1, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chennai. Kancheepuram District 602 105. [Pan:Aaccd4172F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri B. Jayaragahvan, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2021 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 92Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], Dated 13.10.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. Besides Challenging Transfer Pricing Issues Of Custom Duty, Working Capital Adjustment, Foreign Exchange Loss, Provision For Doubtful Debts, Confirming Hanon Climate Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Is A Comparable Company, The Assessee Has Also Challenged Corporate Tax Issue Of Brought Forward Business Losses From The Previous Years.

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

Capco Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 204/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.204/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Capco Technologies Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sjr I-Park, Ground Floor, Tower 2, Block Circle -2(1)(1), Phi, Ramagondanahalli, Whitefield S.O, Bengaluru. Bengaluru. Pan : Aadcc 4204 G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Sandeep Huilgol, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Srinivas T Bidari, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 26.04.2021 By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To Capco Group. The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Capco Belgium Bvba, Belgium. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee & Its It(Tp)A No.204/Bang/2021 Page 2 Of 27

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Srinivas T Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)