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

Flextronics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. ACIT (OSD), Chennai

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

ITA 322/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.322/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Flextronics Technologies (India) Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited [Appeal By Flexpower India Income Tax (Osd), Private Limited, That Has Merged With Corporate Range 2, Room No. 403, Flextronics Technologies (India) Private Wanaparthy Block, No. 121, Limited, Plot No. 3, Phase Ii, Sipcot Mahatma Gandhi Road, Industrial Park, Sandavellure C Village, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu 602 106. [Pan:Aaacf5248E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[“Act” In Short] Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Pressed Ground Nos. 1

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92C

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITTPA 888/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.888/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2018-2010 M/S.Essilor India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 10Th Floor, Prestige Trade Tower Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(1) V. Bangalore. 46, Palace Road, High Grounds Sampangi Rama Nagar Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaace4623J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Chavali Narayan, Ca Respondent By : Ms.Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2023 Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 28.07.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-2019. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is Engaged In The Trading Of Ophthalmic Lenses, Optical Meters & Processing Of Semi-Finished Ophthalmic Lenses. For The Assessment Year 2017-2018, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2018 Declaring Loss Of Rs.50,15,147. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued On 22.09.2019. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing

For Appellant: Sri.Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 92C

Witzenmann India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1423/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1423/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Witzenmann India Private Limited....……….........…..........….…… Appellant Nsc Building, Plot No.12, Block – Aq, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-91. [Pan: Aaach7739L] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata.......….....…….............…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Arun Chhabra, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 16, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessment Dated Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Pursuant To The Transfer Pricing Adjustment. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Impugned Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 12.04.2019 U/S 143(3)/147 Read With Section 144C & 144C(5) Of The Act Was Wrong & Illegal & Void Ab Initio. The Ld. Counsel Has Invited Our Attention To The Following Sequence Of Events: Particulars In Case Of The Appellant

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 92C