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

Kubota Agricultural Machinery India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3089/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.(Tp)A. No.62/Chny/2018 & I.T.A. No. 3089/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2013-14 M/S. Kubota Agricultural Machinery Vs. The Asstt./Dy. Commissioner Of India Private Limited, No. 15, Income Tax, Medavakkam Road, Sholinganallur, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai 600 119. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aadck5472E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sampath Raghunathan, Advocate & Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals In It(Tp)A No. 62/Chny/2018 & Ita No. 3089/Chny/2017 Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Final Assessment Orders Dated 03.10.2018 & 10.10.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

M/S AO Smith India Water Products Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the ground number 11-18 are allowed for statistical purposes and grounds related to AMP expenses are allowed

ITTPA 890/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavit(Tp)A No.890/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2018-2019 M/S.Ao Smith India Water The Deputy Commissioner Of Products Private Limited Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) Vs. No.300, Phase 2, Kiadb Bangalore. Industrial Area, Harohalli Kanakapura Taluk, Ramnagara Bangalore – 562 159. Pan: Aafca8954R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By: Sri.Subramanian.S, Jcit-Dr Date Of Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Pronouncement: 25.07.2024 O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm : The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 26Th July, 2022, Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 38 Grounds Of Appeal. Ground Nos.1 To 10 Are General In Nature. Ground Nos.11 To 18 Relate To Tp Adjustment Made By The Learned Ao/Tpo/Drp While Framing The Impugned Assessment. Ground Nos.19 To 38 Relate To The Addition Of Rs.41,45,24,454 On The Ground That Amp Expenses Are International Transactions.

For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Subramanian.S, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C