The CIT(A) held my TPO order time barred because it was digitally signed a day after the date printed on it. The Revenue is now relying on a new sub-section. Where does that leave me?
The Tribunal applied clause (c) of s.92CA(3AA) — then still the proposed clause 4 of the Finance Bill 2026, enacted three days after the order was pronounced — and held the TPO's order within time. The order was dated 31 October 2019 but digitally signed and issued on 1 November 2019, and the CIT(A) had annulled the transfer pricing adjustment on the footing that a 31 December 2019 assessment deadline required the TPO's order by 31 October. Because s.92CA(3AA)(c) deems that where limitation expires on 31 December the order may be made up to 1 November, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's grounds on limitation and remanded the merits of the adjustment to the CIT(A), who had never decided them.
Decided by the ITAT (Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member and Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Member (Mumbai Bench 'K')) on 2026-03-27, reported as ITA No. 7871/MUM/2025 and CO No. 34/MUM/2026 (AY 2016-17). It bears on section 92CA, section 92CA(3), section 92CA(3A), section 92CA(3AA), section 153, section 143(3), section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny and Appeals matters.
This is the first application of s.92CA(3AA) that I could find, and it shows exactly how the retrospective amendment is being used: to reopen concluded findings of limitation and send the merits back for a hearing that never happened. If you won on s.92CA(3A) before an appellate authority and the merits were left undecided because the limitation point disposed of the appeal, expect the same course. The digital-signature question — whether an order is 'made' on the date it bears or on the date it is signed and issued — was NOT decided; it became academic once the amendment covered both dates. That question remains open for a case where the two dates straddle the deemed date rather than sitting either side of the old one.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
For AY 2016-17 the TPO made an adjustment of Rs 10,77,31,990 to the arm's length price of research support services provided by the assessee to its associated enterprises. The limitation date for the assessment order under s.143(3) was 31 December 2019. The TPO's order under s.92CA(3) bore the date 31 October 2019 but was digitally signed and issued on 1 November 2019. Before the CIT(A) the assessee argued that on the s.92CA(3A) counting the last date was 31 October, that the order was effectively passed on 1 November, and that it was therefore barred by one day. The CIT(A), by order dated 26 September 2025, deleted the entire adjustment on that ground and did not decide the comparability and pricing issues on merits. The Revenue appealed and the assessee filed cross objections, including a ground that the CIT(A) had failed to decide grounds 3.1 to 3.5 on merits.
Applying clause (c) of s.92CA(3AA) — where the period of limitation expires on 31 December, the order under s.92CA(3) may be made up to 1 November of that year — the Tribunal held that the order was within the time limit allowed, and allowed grounds 1 to 4 of the Revenue's appeal (para 8). Since neither side had had the merits of the adjustment decided, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to the extent of the Rs 10,77,31,990 adjustment and remanded that issue to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, treating ground 5 of the Revenue's appeal and ground 2 of the cross objections as partly allowed (para 8.1).
Counsel for the assessee himself opened by pointing out that in the light of the amendment to s.92CA proposed by the Finance Bill 2026 the dispute would in any event have to go back to the CIT(A) on merits. The Tribunal reproduced Clause 4 of Chapter III of the Bill, which inserts sub-section (3AA) after sub-section (3A) and deems it to have been inserted with effect from 1 June 2007, opening with the words 'Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, order or decree of any court'. Reading clause (c), the Tribunal held that where limitation expires on 31 December the order may be made up to 1 November, that the order in this case was passed on 1 November, and that it was therefore in time. The Tribunal noted expressly that no argument had been advanced against the applicability of the amendment. Because the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal on limitation alone, the merits were remanded.
The clause (c) of the proposed sub-section (3AA) of Section 92CA, as per the above amendment, clarifies that in cases where the period of limitation expires on 31st December, the order u/s 92CA(3) can be made up to the 1st November of that year.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppThe Tribunal applied clause (c) of s.92CA(3AA) — then still the proposed clause 4 of the Finance Bill 2026, enacted three days after the order was pronounced — and held the TPO's order within time. The order was dated 31 October 2019 but digitally signed and issued on 1 November 2019, and the CIT(A) had annulled the transfer pricing adjustment on the footing that a 31 December 2019 assessment deadline required the TPO's order by 31 October. Because s.92CA(3AA)(c) deems that where limitation expires on 31 December the order may be made up to 1 November, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's grounds on limitation and remanded the merits of the adjustment to the CIT(A), who had never decided them. This was decided by the ITAT (Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member and Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Member (Mumbai Bench 'K')) and bears on section 92CA, section 92CA(3), section 92CA(3A), section 92CA(3AA), section 153, section 143(3), section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 7871/MUM/2025 and CO No. 34/MUM/2026 (AY 2016-17). This is the first application of s.92CA(3AA) that I could find, and it shows exactly how the retrospective amendment is being used: to reopen concluded findings of limitation and send the merits back for a hearing that never happened. If you won on s.92CA(3A) before an appellate authority and the merits were left undecided because the limitation point disposed of the appeal, expect the same course. The digital-signature question — whether an order is 'made' on the date it bears or on the date it is signed and issued — was NOT decided; it became academic once the amendment covered both dates. That question remains open for a case where the two dates straddle the deemed date rather than sitting either side of the old one. If it applies to you, the first step is this: If you hold a CIT(A) or Tribunal order annulling a transfer pricing adjustment on s.92CA(3A) limitation, assume the Revenue will invoke s.92CA(3AA) and prepare the merits of the comparability and adjustment case now.
For AY 2016-17 the TPO made an adjustment of Rs 10,77,31,990 to the arm's length price of research support services provided by the assessee to its associated enterprises. The limitation date for the assessment order under s.143(3) was 31 December 2019. The TPO's order under s.92CA(3) bore the date 31 October 2019 but was digitally signed and issued on 1 November 2019. Before the CIT(A) the assessee argued that on the s.92CA(3A) counting the last date was 31 October, that the order was effectively passed on 1 November, and that it was therefore barred by one day. The CIT(A), by order dated 26 September 2025, deleted the entire adjustment on that ground and did not decide the comparability and pricing issues on merits. The Revenue appealed and the assessee filed cross objections, including a ground that the CIT(A) had failed to decide grounds 3.1 to 3.5 on merits. The matter was decided on 2026-03-27 by the ITAT (Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member and Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Member (Mumbai Bench 'K')). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. Applying clause (c) of s.92CA(3AA) — where the period of limitation expires on 31 December, the order under s.92CA(3) may be made up to 1 November of that year — the Tribunal held that the order was within the time limit allowed, and allowed grounds 1 to 4 of the Revenue's appeal (para 8). Since neither side had had the merits of the adjustment decided, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to the extent of the Rs 10,77,31,990 adjustment and remanded that issue to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, treating ground 5 of the Revenue's appeal and ground 2 of the cross objections as partly allowed (para 8.1).
Counsel for the assessee himself opened by pointing out that in the light of the amendment to s.92CA proposed by the Finance Bill 2026 the dispute would in any event have to go back to the CIT(A) on merits. The Tribunal reproduced Clause 4 of Chapter III of the Bill, which inserts sub-section (3AA) after sub-section (3A) and deems it to have been inserted with effect from 1 June 2007, opening with the words 'Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, order or decree of any court'. Reading clause (c), the Tribunal held that where limitation expires on 31 December the order may be made up to 1 November, that the order in this case was passed on 1 November, and that it was therefore in time. The Tribunal noted expressly that no argument had been advanced against the applicability of the amendment. Because the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal on limitation alone, the merits were remanded. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The clause (c) of the proposed sub-section (3AA) of Section 92CA, as per the above amendment, clarifies that in cases where the period of limitation expires on 31st December, the order u/s 92CA(3) can be made up to the 1st November of that year."
It was decided by the ITAT on 2026-03-27 and is reported as ITA No. 7871/MUM/2025 and CO No. 34/MUM/2026 (AY 2016-17). Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 92CA, section 92CA(3), section 92CA(3A), section 92CA(3AA), section 153, section 143(3), section 250, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It cuts both ways and is cited by both sides. Applying clause (c) of s.92CA(3AA) — where the period of limitation expires on 31 December, the order under s.92CA(3) may be made up to 1 November of that year — the Tribunal held that the order was within the time limit allowed, and allowed grounds 1 to 4 of the Revenue's appeal (para 8). Since neither side had had the merits of the adjustment decided, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to the extent of the Rs 10,77,31,990 adjustment and remanded that issue to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, treating ground 5 of the Revenue's appeal and ground 2 of the cross objections as partly allowed (para 8.1). It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny and Appeals matters, on section 92CA, section 92CA(3), section 92CA(3A), section 92CA(3AA), section 153, section 143(3), section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member and Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Member (Mumbai Bench 'K'). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Where the merits were never adjudicated because the limitation ground disposed of the appeal, ask for a remand on the merits rather than resisting the remand — that is what happened here. Keep the date-of-signature point in reserve: record the date printed on the TPO order, the date of digital signature, and the date of service, because the deemed dates in s.92CA(3AA) still have to be measured against one of them. Check whether the assessee's own conduct forecloses argument: the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's grounds partly because no argument was made against the applicability of the amendment. Check first whether the s.153 expiry date in your case is one of the three that s.92CA(3AA) legislates for — 31 March in a non-leap year, 31 March in a leap year, or 31 December. If it is 30 September or any other date, (3AA) is silent and the Pfizer counting still governs.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. A caution on identification before the result: the library records this order as decided on 27 March 2026, but Indian Kanoon carries no Citigroup Global Markets India Tribunal order of that date. The id held for this entry (106016976) resolves to 'Citigroup Global Markets India Pvt. ... vs ACIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai on 10 February, 2026', and the companion Revenue appeal is doc 109471862 of the same date. The citator was run on both ids and each returns nothing, and a name probe returned 120 decisions with no Tribunal or High Court decision later than February 2026 on the retrospective counting under s.92CA(3AA). On what could be identified there is no later treatment, but the date discrepancy should be resolved before this entry is relied on. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
Two problems in the report, both material. First, the header in the copy I read gives Date of Hearing 10.02.2026 and Date of Pronouncement 27.03.2026, while the indiankanoon listing dates the document 10 February 2026; I have taken the pronouncement date from the order itself. Second, the copy I read carries at paragraph 23 the sentence 'In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed', which cannot be reconciled with paragraph 8 ('the ground numbers 1 to 4 of the Revenue's appeal are allowed') and paragraph 8.1 ('the ground No. 5 of revenue's appeal and ground No.2 assessee's Cross Objections are treated as partly allowed'); that sentence also sits at the end of a discussion of Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd concerning admission of an additional ground on dividend distribution tax in the cross objections. I have therefore stated the holding only from paragraphs 8 and 8.1, both re-fetched and verified verbatim, and have not relied on the final disposal line. The order refers to s.92CA(3AA) as proposed in the Finance Bill 2026; I separately confirmed on the department's live page that it was enacted by Act No. 4 of 2026 with retrospective effect from 1 June 2007. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Applying clause (c) of s.92CA(3AA) — where the period of limitation expires on 31 December, the order under s.92CA(3) may be made up to 1 November of that year — the Tribunal held that the order was within the time limit allowed, and allowed grounds 1 to 4 of the Revenue's appeal (para 8). Since neither side had had the merits of the adjustment decided, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to the extent of the Rs 10,77,31,990 adjustment and remanded that issue to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, treating ground 5 of the Revenue's appeal and ground 2 of the cross objections as partly allowed (para 8.1).
TaxSphere, “ACIT v Citigroup Global Markets India Pvt Ltd”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/citigroup-global-markets-92ca-3aa-retrospective-counting/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The TPO's order is dated one day inside the sixty-day window as I count it, but the department counts it differently. Is the order time barred, and if it is, does the assessment fall with it?
The TPO's order was one day late. Does that kill the transfer pricing addition?
The Tribunal remanded my transfer pricing issue. The Assessing Officer has now passed a final assessment order straight off the TPO's fresh order, without any draft order. Is that good?
The Assessing Officer has served a final assessment order on our foreign company raising a transfer pricing addition, without ever serving a draft order. Was he obliged to serve one first, and what was I supposed to do with it if he had?
