My APA application is still pending and its rollback period covers the very year under appeal. Is that any answer to the recovery notice?
Yes, it is a ground for stay. Where the year under appeal falls within the rollback period of a pending APA application, the outcome of the APA proceeding has a direct bearing on that year, and the Tribunal will stay the balance of the demand. Here, with 20 per cent already deposited, the balance of Rs. 6,72,38,488 was stayed for 180 days or until disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier.
Decided by the ITAT (Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member and Shri Keshav Dubey, Judicial Member) on 2025-03-28, reported as SP No. 37/Bang/2024 in IT(TP)A No. 1384/Bang/2024, assessment year 2020-21, ITAT Bangalore 'C' Bench. No reporter citation was printed on the page read.. It bears on section 92CC, section Rule 10MA, section 254 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Demand, Recovery & Stay and Appeals matters.
APA proceedings run for years and the rollback years remain exposed to recovery the whole time. This is a direct authority that the pendency of the APA application, coupled with rollback covering the year, is itself a reason to hold the demand — a point that otherwise has to be argued from first principles.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Stay application in the transfer pricing appeal for assessment year 2020-21. The total demand was Rs. 8,40,48,110. The applicant had deposited Rs. 1,68,09,622, being 20 per cent of the outstanding demand, on 25 February 2025. The applicant had filed an Advance Pricing Agreement application in Forms 3CED and 3CEDA on 15 June 2022. The Tribunal recorded that the APA application covers the future period of five years from financial years 2023-24 to 2027-28, that is assessment years 2024-25 to 2028-29, and a rollback period of four years covering financial years 2019-20 to 2022-23, that is assessment years 2020-21 to 2023-24. Assessment year 2020-21, the year under appeal, therefore fell within the rollback period.
The stay application was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The balance of the outstanding demand of Rs. 6,72,38,488 for assessment year 2020-21 was stayed for a period of 180 days from the date of issue of the order or until disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier (operative paragraph, following para 4).
Two things weighed with the Tribunal. First, the applicant had already paid 20 per cent of the outstanding demand on 25 February 2025, which met the ordinary condition for a stay. Second, the year under appeal fell within the rollback period of the pending APA application, so that the outcome of the APA proceeding has a direct bearing on assessment year 2020-21 (para 4). On that footing recovery of the balance pending the APA and the appeal was not appropriate, and the balance was stayed for the usual period.
the outcome of the APA proceeding has a direct bearing on the impugned AY 2020-21
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 WhatsAppYes, it is a ground for stay. Where the year under appeal falls within the rollback period of a pending APA application, the outcome of the APA proceeding has a direct bearing on that year, and the Tribunal will stay the balance of the demand. Here, with 20 per cent already deposited, the balance of Rs. 6,72,38,488 was stayed for 180 days or until disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier. This was decided by the ITAT (Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member and Shri Keshav Dubey, Judicial Member) and bears on section 92CC, section Rule 10MA, section 254 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as SP No. 37/Bang/2024 in IT(TP)A No. 1384/Bang/2024, assessment year 2020-21, ITAT Bangalore 'C' Bench. No reporter citation was printed on the page read.. APA proceedings run for years and the rollback years remain exposed to recovery the whole time. This is a direct authority that the pendency of the APA application, coupled with rollback covering the year, is itself a reason to hold the demand — a point that otherwise has to be argued from first principles. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Set out in the stay application the date the APA application was filed and the forms filed, the future years the APA covers and the rollback years, and show on the face of it that the appeal year falls inside the rollback period.
Stay application in the transfer pricing appeal for assessment year 2020-21. The total demand was Rs. 8,40,48,110. The applicant had deposited Rs. 1,68,09,622, being 20 per cent of the outstanding demand, on 25 February 2025. The applicant had filed an Advance Pricing Agreement application in Forms 3CED and 3CEDA on 15 June 2022. The Tribunal recorded that the APA application covers the future period of five years from financial years 2023-24 to 2027-28, that is assessment years 2024-25 to 2028-29, and a rollback period of four years covering financial years 2019-20 to 2022-23, that is assessment years 2020-21 to 2023-24. Assessment year 2020-21, the year under appeal, therefore fell within the rollback period. The matter was decided on 2025-03-28 by the ITAT (Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member and Shri Keshav Dubey, Judicial Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The stay application was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The balance of the outstanding demand of Rs. 6,72,38,488 for assessment year 2020-21 was stayed for a period of 180 days from the date of issue of the order or until disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier (operative paragraph, following para 4).
Two things weighed with the Tribunal. First, the applicant had already paid 20 per cent of the outstanding demand on 25 February 2025, which met the ordinary condition for a stay. Second, the year under appeal fell within the rollback period of the pending APA application, so that the outcome of the APA proceeding has a direct bearing on assessment year 2020-21 (para 4). On that footing recovery of the balance pending the APA and the appeal was not appropriate, and the balance was stayed for the usual period. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "the outcome of the APA proceeding has a direct bearing on the impugned AY 2020-21"
It was decided by the ITAT on 2025-03-28 and is reported as SP No. 37/Bang/2024 in IT(TP)A No. 1384/Bang/2024, assessment year 2020-21, ITAT Bangalore 'C' Bench. No reporter citation was printed on the page read.. 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 92CC, section Rule 10MA, section 254, 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 helps the taxpayer. The stay application was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The balance of the outstanding demand of Rs. 6,72,38,488 for assessment year 2020-21 was stayed for a period of 180 days from the date of issue of the order or until disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier (operative paragraph, following para 4). It arises in Demand, Recovery & Stay and Appeals matters, on section 92CC, section Rule 10MA, section 254 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member and Shri Keshav Dubey, Judicial Member. 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. Say in terms that the outcome of the APA proceeding has a direct bearing on the year under appeal; that is the finding the Tribunal made here. Deposit the standard 20 per cent of the demand before you move, and put the challan and its date on record — the Tribunal recorded the payment as part of its reasons. Ask for the stay to run for 180 days or until disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier, and diarise the expiry so that an extension application goes in before the period lapses. Press for an early hearing of the connected transfer pricing appeal at the same time, since the stay is tied to its disposal.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. Decided 28 March 2025. No later order extending, vacating or referring to this stay was located, and no decision applying its reasoning was found. A stay order binds nobody beyond the case, so it is persuasive on the practice and no more; the underlying appeal, IT(TP)A No. 1384/Bang/2024, was still pending when this order was passed and its outcome was not traced. 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.
This is an order on a stay application, not a decision on the merits of the transfer pricing adjustment, and it should never be cited as one. The order is short and the copy read does not carry numbered paragraphs throughout, so the operative direction is cited as following para 4. The discovery record quoted a sentence containing the words 'falls within the roll back period of APA application under Rule 10MA'; that exact phrase could not be recovered verbatim from the copy read, so the quotation used here is the sentence that did come back whole. The rollback framework is Rule 10MA and the rollback application form is Form 3CEDA, both of which the order itself refers to; no other statutory provision is cited in the order, so the section list here is deliberately short. Whether the stay was later extended, and what happened in the APA proceeding, could not be established. 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.
The stay application was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The balance of the outstanding demand of Rs. 6,72,38,488 for assessment year 2020-21 was stayed for a period of 180 days from the date of issue of the order or until disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier (operative paragraph, following para 4).
TaxSphere, “Sprinklr India P. Ltd. v DCIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/sprinklr-india-pending-apa-rollback-year-as-a-ground-for-stay-of-demand/ (validity last checked 2026-09-16)
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.
Your APA has no rollback for the year under appeal. Can you still make the TPO benchmark that year on the APA's method and tested party?
Your APA for a later year accepts the foreign associated enterprise as the tested party. Can the TPO still make you the tested party in an open earlier year?
I want the four rollback years with my APA. Can I pick only the years that help me, and what will knock rollback out before I start?
My advance pricing agreement covers five years. What about the year just outside it - can the agreed margin be held against me, or held to my benefit, for that year?
