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

Essar Power Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- RG - 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5450/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Essar Power Limited, Vs. A.C.I.T., Essar House, 11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034. Range-6(2)(2), Mumbai. Pan/Gir No. Aaace 0895 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Revenue By Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari (Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 25/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per: R.C. Sharma, A.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Direction Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-1(Wz), Mumbai (In Short, The Drp) Dated 24/07/2018 For The A.Y. 2014-15 U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ao') Has Erred In Completing The Assessment Of Appellant At Inr 1,43,93,58,982 /- (As Against Returned Loss Of Inr (64,80,75,116) Vide Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') After Considering The Adjustments Made By Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) In His Order Passed Under Section 92Ca(3) Of The Act & Subsequently Confirmed By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp'). Essar Power Limited Vs Acit Grounds Relating To Transfer Pricing Matters: 2. The Tpo/Ao/Drp Erred In Making An Adjustment Of Rs.5,22,146/- For Interest On Outstanding Receivables From Essar Africa Holding Ltd & Considering The Same As A Separate International Transaction & Charging Notional Interest.

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92E

Asst CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Doka India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1912/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1912/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-15(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Doka India Pvt. Ltd. 483A, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Plot No. 26A, Sector-7, 601 Vs. Bhavan, Mumbai-400021. To 606, Mahavir Landmark Bldg, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai-410210. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd7895H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Anand Mohan (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/ Dhaval Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S.144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short “The Act”) In Pursuance Of The Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel – I, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Drp”] Dated 29.12.2015 Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah/ Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92C