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

M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2571/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.2571/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/S.Tyco Fire & Security India The Asst.Commissioner Of Private Limited, D-601, Rmz Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. Centennial, Kundalahalli Main Bangalore. Road, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabct0087C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Keerthi Narayanan, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2021 Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca R.W.S.144C(13) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 21.10.2019 & Rectification Order Passed U/S 154 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 05.12.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015- 2016. 2. At The Time Of Hearing Before Us, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Had Opted To Resolve The Dispute Raised In This Appeal Under The Provisions Of Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. He, Therefore, Prayed That The Appeal May Be Treated As Withdrawn. In View Of The Submission Made By The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, We Dismiss The Appeal Filed By The Assessee As Withdrawn.

For Appellant: Sri.Keerthi Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1971/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.1907/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2008-2009 M/S.Dell International Services The Addl.Commissioner Of India Private Limited (Formerly Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Known As Dell Computers India Bangalore. Private Limited) No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A Divyashree Greens, Challaghatta Village, Varthur, Hobli Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aabcd1741M. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.1971/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2008-2009 The Addl.Commissioner Of M/S.Dell International Services Income-Tax (Ltu) India Private Limited (Formerly V. Bangalore. Known As Dell Computers India Private Limited) Bangalore – 560 071. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.T.Surayanarayana, Advocate Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2021 Date Of Hearing : 24.08.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm The Above Cross Appeals Were Disposed Of By The Itat Vide Its Order Dated 23.10.2019. The Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Petition (Mp No.64/Bang/2020 & Mp No.65/Bang/2020) For Non-Adjudication Of Assessee’S Prayer, Namely, Exclusion Of E-Zest Solutions Limited & Softsol India Limited From The Final List Of Comparables. Further, As Regards The Corporate Tax Issue, It Was Stated In The Mp That There Is No Adjudication Of Ground Nos.15 & 16 In 2 It(Tp)A No.1907 & 1971/Bang/2017. M/S.Dell International Services India Pvt.Ltd. Assessee’S Appeal. In Grounds 15 & 16, The Issue Raised Is That The Assessee Is Entitled To Benefit U/S 10A Of The I.T.Act In Respect Of Additions Agreed Under Map. The Assessee’S Further Prayer As Regards Ground No.1 In Revenue’S Appeal Is That Though The Issue Has Been Discussed, Since It Is Appearing In Ground No.15 & 16 Of The Assessee’S Appeal, The Conclusions Of The Itat In Its Order Dated 23.10.2019 Also Needs To Be Modified.

For Appellant: Sri.T.Surayanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 10A

M/S Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1907/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.1907/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2008-2009 M/S.Dell International Services The Addl.Commissioner Of India Private Limited (Formerly Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Known As Dell Computers India Bangalore. Private Limited) No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A Divyashree Greens, Challaghatta Village, Varthur, Hobli Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aabcd1741M. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.1971/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2008-2009 The Addl.Commissioner Of M/S.Dell International Services Income-Tax (Ltu) India Private Limited (Formerly V. Bangalore. Known As Dell Computers India Private Limited) Bangalore – 560 071. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.T.Surayanarayana, Advocate Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2021 Date Of Hearing : 24.08.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm The Above Cross Appeals Were Disposed Of By The Itat Vide Its Order Dated 23.10.2019. The Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Petition (Mp No.64/Bang/2020 & Mp No.65/Bang/2020) For Non-Adjudication Of Assessee’S Prayer, Namely, Exclusion Of E-Zest Solutions Limited & Softsol India Limited From The Final List Of Comparables. Further, As Regards The Corporate Tax Issue, It Was Stated In The Mp That There Is No Adjudication Of Ground Nos.15 & 16 In 2 It(Tp)A No.1907 & 1971/Bang/2017. M/S.Dell International Services India Pvt.Ltd. Assessee’S Appeal. In Grounds 15 & 16, The Issue Raised Is That The Assessee Is Entitled To Benefit U/S 10A Of The I.T.Act In Respect Of Additions Agreed Under Map. The Assessee’S Further Prayer As Regards Ground No.1 In Revenue’S Appeal Is That Though The Issue Has Been Discussed, Since It Is Appearing In Ground No.15 & 16 Of The Assessee’S Appeal, The Conclusions Of The Itat In Its Order Dated 23.10.2019 Also Needs To Be Modified.

For Appellant: Sri.T.Surayanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 10A

Francois Compressor India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 2504/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2504/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 ………. अपीलाथ" / Francois Compressor India Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.147/1(New), Lavale Road, Appellant Pirangut, Tal. Mulshi, Dist. Pune – 412115. Pan : Aabcf0496K. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1 (2), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Shah. Revenue By : Shri Amol Kamat. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dt.31.08.2017 Passed Under Sec.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under : The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Sale

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41(1)Section 92C