VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawIncome-tax Act 2025Chapter X › Section 173
Chapter Xwas s.92F

Section 173 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

Section 173 — Definitions of certain terms relevant to determination of arm's length price, etc. Successor to s.92F of the 1961 Act.

Where this section sits

Section 173 is in Chapter X — Special Provisions Relating to Avoidance of Tax, which runs from section 161 to section 177.

← Section 172  ·  Section 174 →

What this section does

It is the definition section for the transfer pricing group, and it says so: the meanings it gives apply for itself and for sections 161, 162, 163, 165, 171 and 172. It defines "arm's length price" as a price applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises in uncontrolled conditions; "enterprise" as a person, including a permanent establishment of that person, engaged, formerly engaged or proposed to be engaged in any of seven listed activities — goods, intellectual property, technical data, services, contract work, investment or lending, and dealing in securities of another body corporate — whether carried on directly or through units, divisions or subsidiaries and wherever located; "permanent establishment" as including a fixed place of business through which the business is wholly or partly carried on; "specified date" as the date one month before the due date for furnishing the return under section 263(1) for the relevant tax year; and "transaction" as including an arrangement, understanding or action in concert, whether or not formal, in writing, or intended to be legally enforceable.

Why it is there

The definitions are drawn deliberately wide so that the transfer pricing provisions cannot be avoided by informality or by structuring: an unwritten and unenforceable understanding is still a transaction, and an entity that has merely proposed to engage in an activity is still an enterprise.

Who it applies to

The figures, and what each one turns on

Read the condition in the same row. A figure quoted without it is a wrong answer with a citation attached.
WhatFigureThe condition on itWhere
Specified dateOne month before the due date for furnishing the return of income under section 263(1)For the relevant tax year173(d)

What this means in practice

The date to diarise is the "specified date" — one month before the section 263(1) return due date — because the transfer pricing obligations elsewhere in the Chapter run to it rather than to the return date. When testing whether something is caught, start from the width of clause (e): an informal, oral, unenforceable arrangement or an action in concert is a transaction, so the absence of a contract proves nothing. Likewise clause (b) captures a person who "has been" or "is proposed to be" engaged in the activity, and reaches through units, divisions and subsidiaries wherever located.

An example

Illustrative only, and invented for this page. The figures are chosen to show the rule biting, not taken from any real matter.

Two associated enterprises settle a supply arrangement over a call, with nothing in writing and no intention that it be enforceable in court. Clause (e) still makes it a "transaction" — an arrangement, understanding or action in concert counts whether or not it is formal, in writing, or intended to be enforceable by legal proceeding — so it is open to arm's length pricing like any signed contract. The enterprise on the other side need not even be trading now: clause (b) covers a person who is, has been, or is proposed to be engaged in the listed activities. A firm that then works to the return due date is already late, clause (d) fixing the specified date one month before the due date under section 263(1).

Where you meet this section

A taxpayer never meets section 173 by itself. Its meanings are what a transfer pricing proceeding under sections 161, 162, 163, 165, 171 and 172 runs on, and its "specified date" is the deadline that governs the accountant's report required under those sections.

The words themselves

"arm's length price" means a price which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises, in uncontrolled conditions
Section 173(a), Income-tax Act, 2025.

What people get wrong

What this replaced

The correspondence is the Income Tax Department’s own, from its comparison utility for the 1961 and 2025 Acts. A renumbering is the easy half; whether the words changed is the half that decides cases.

See the full 1961 to 2025 concordance.

Rules that serve this section

Rules of the Income-tax Rules, 2026 that work section 173. Where the rule’s own heading names the section we say so; the rest are marked on reading the rule, which is our derivation and not the department’s. A rule that serves the section silently and that we have missed will not appear here.

All of them are in the Rules 2026 index.

Notifications that reach this section

A notification is made under a power the Act gives and, within that power, is law. These too were made under the 1961 Act and are placed here by the department’s concordance.

See the notifications index.

Case law carried across

Read this before you rely on it. Every decision below was decided under the Income-tax Act, 1961. It appears here because it is tagged to a 1961 provision that the department’s own mapping carries to section 173. That is an inference we have drawn, not a holding on the new section: where the words changed in the move, the reasoning may not survive. Treat this as the place to start looking, not as authority on the 2025 Act.

Explainers

Read with

What this page does not tell you. It does not reproduce the section. Everything above was written from the section’s own text as the Income Tax Department publishes it — the text is here, and nothing here is advice on your facts. Where a figure matters, read the sub-section it comes from.