Do I have to go through a pre-filing consultation before I file Form 3CED, and what happens if the application is defective or goes in late?
Since 14 March 2015 pre-filing consultation is optional: rule 10-I(1) now lets any person referred to in rule 10G apply in Form No. 3CED, where before that date it was confined to a person who had been through a pre-filing consultation under rule 10H. A defect in the application is not fatal by itself — rule 10K requires a deficiency letter within one month of receipt, gives the applicant fifteen days to cure, extendable to a total of thirty, and only then allows an order that the application shall not be proceeded with, which cannot be passed without a hearing and which carries a refund of the fee. Timing is a different matter: rule 10-I(3) fixes when the application must be made and no provision for extending it appears in these rules.
Decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text) on 2012-07-01, reported as Rules 10F to 10T made under s.92CC(9) of the Income-tax Act 1961, which took effect on 1 July 2012; rules 10-I(1), 10H and 10K amended by the Income-tax (Third Amendment) Rules 2015 with effect from 14 March 2015. It bears on section Rule 10F, section Rule 10G, section Rule 10H, section Rule 10-I, section Rule 10J, section Rule 10K, section 92CC, section 92CC(9) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
The timing point in rule 10-I(3) decides which years an agreement can cover, and it is the one thing in this part of the scheme with no curative machinery behind it. The defect machinery in rule 10K, by contrast, is generous and largely unknown — an applicant told his Form 3CED is defective has a deficiency letter, a cure period and a hearing before anything is lost, and gets his fee back if the application is not allowed to proceed. No decided case on any of this could be found, so the rules are the whole of the law on the point.
Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Rule 10F is the definitions rule for the advance pricing agreement scheme, applying to rules 10G to 10T, and defines "agreement", "application", "applicant", "bilateral agreement", "competent authority in India", "covered transaction", "critical assumptions", "most appropriate transfer pricing method", "multilateral agreement", "rollback year", "tax treaty", "team" and "unilateral agreement". Rule 10G provides that any person who has undertaken an international transaction, or is contemplating to undertake an international transaction, shall be eligible to enter into an agreement under these rules. Rule 10H(1) allows any person proposing to enter into an agreement to make a request in writing for a pre-filing consultation, in Form No. 3CEC to the Director General of Income-tax (International Taxation) under sub-rule (2); sub-rule (5) sets out what the consultation is for — determining the scope of the agreement, identifying transfer pricing issues, determining the suitability of the international transaction for an agreement and discussing broad terms; and sub-rule (6) provides that the pre-filing consultation shall not bind the Board or the person to enter into an agreement or initiate the agreement process and shall not be deemed to mean that the person has applied for entering into an agreement. Rule 10-I(1) requires the application to be in Form No. 3CED with the fee; sub-rule (2) directs it to the Director General of Income-tax (International Taxation) for a unilateral agreement and to the competent authority in India for a bilateral or multilateral agreement; sub-rule (3) fixes the time; sub-rule (4) requires proof of payment; and sub-rule (5) carries the fee slabs of ten, fifteen and twenty lakh rupees by reference to the amount of international transaction entered into or proposed to be undertaken in respect of which the agreement is proposed. Rule 10J allows withdrawal at any time before the finalisation of the terms of the agreement, in Form No. 3CEE, with no refund of fee. Rule 10K(1) requires every application in Form No. 3CED to be complete in all respects and accompanied by the requisite documents; sub-rules (2) to (5) are the deficiency procedure.
The statutory position is that a defective Form 3CED is curable and a late one is not. Rule 10K(2) obliges the Director General or the competent authority to serve a deficiency letter before the expiry of one month from the date of receipt of the application where a defect is noticed, a relevant document is not attached, or the application is not in accordance with the understanding reached in a pre-filing consultation under rule 10H. Rule 10K(3) gives fifteen days from service to remove the deficiency or modify the application, extendable on application so that the total does not exceed thirty days. Rule 10K(4) allows an order that the application shall not be allowed to be proceeded with only where the defect is not removed in accordance with sub-rule (3), and rule 10K(5) provides that no such order shall be passed without providing an opportunity of being heard, and that where an application is not allowed to be proceeded with the fee paid shall be refunded. Nothing in rules 10G to 10K provides for extending the time in rule 10-I(3) or for condoning a late application.
The 2015 amendment is what makes the present shape of this part of the scheme intelligible. As rule 10-I(1) was first made, only a person "who has entered into a pre-filing consultation as referred to in rule 10H" could apply; the Income-tax (Third Amendment) Rules 2015 substituted "referred to in rule 10G" with effect from 14 March 2015, and the same amendment softened rule 10H(1) from "Every person" to "Any person" and from "shall" to "may". Pre-filing consultation thus moved from gateway to option. Rule 10K, however, still refers to an application not being in accordance with the understanding reached in a pre-filing consultation, which now reads as a ground that arises only where a consultation was in fact held. The refund asymmetry between rule 10J(3) and rule 10K(5) is deliberate on the face of the rules: an applicant who walks away loses his fee, an applicant whose application is turned back at the threshold does not.
The fee paid shall not be refunded on withdrawal of application by the applicant.
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 WhatsAppSince 14 March 2015 pre-filing consultation is optional: rule 10-I(1) now lets any person referred to in rule 10G apply in Form No. 3CED, where before that date it was confined to a person who had been through a pre-filing consultation under rule 10H. A defect in the application is not fatal by itself — rule 10K requires a deficiency letter within one month of receipt, gives the applicant fifteen days to cure, extendable to a total of thirty, and only then allows an order that the application shall not be proceeded with, which cannot be passed without a hearing and which carries a refund of the fee. Timing is a different matter: rule 10-I(3) fixes when the application must be made and no provision for extending it appears in these rules. This was decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text) and bears on section Rule 10F, section Rule 10G, section Rule 10H, section Rule 10-I, section Rule 10J, section Rule 10K, section 92CC, section 92CC(9) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Rules 10F to 10T made under s.92CC(9) of the Income-tax Act 1961, which took effect on 1 July 2012; rules 10-I(1), 10H and 10K amended by the Income-tax (Third Amendment) Rules 2015 with effect from 14 March 2015. The timing point in rule 10-I(3) decides which years an agreement can cover, and it is the one thing in this part of the scheme with no curative machinery behind it. The defect machinery in rule 10K, by contrast, is generous and largely unknown — an applicant told his Form 3CED is defective has a deficiency letter, a cure period and a hearing before anything is lost, and gets his fee back if the application is not allowed to proceed. No decided case on any of this could be found, so the rules are the whole of the law on the point. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Fix the filing date from rule 10-I(3) before anything else: for a transaction of a continuing nature already being undertaken, the application goes in before the first day of the previous year relevant to the first assessment year for which the agreement is sought; otherwise before undertaking the transaction.
Rule 10F is the definitions rule for the advance pricing agreement scheme, applying to rules 10G to 10T, and defines "agreement", "application", "applicant", "bilateral agreement", "competent authority in India", "covered transaction", "critical assumptions", "most appropriate transfer pricing method", "multilateral agreement", "rollback year", "tax treaty", "team" and "unilateral agreement". Rule 10G provides that any person who has undertaken an international transaction, or is contemplating to undertake an international transaction, shall be eligible to enter into an agreement under these rules. Rule 10H(1) allows any person proposing to enter into an agreement to make a request in writing for a pre-filing consultation, in Form No. 3CEC to the Director General of Income-tax (International Taxation) under sub-rule (2); sub-rule (5) sets out what the consultation is for — determining the scope of the agreement, identifying transfer pricing issues, determining the suitability of the international transaction for an agreement and discussing broad terms; and sub-rule (6) provides that the pre-filing consultation shall not bind the Board or the person to enter into an agreement or initiate the agreement process and shall not be deemed to mean that the person has applied for entering into an agreement. Rule 10-I(1) requires the application to be in Form No. 3CED with the fee; sub-rule (2) directs it to the Director General of Income-tax (International Taxation) for a unilateral agreement and to the competent authority in India for a bilateral or multilateral agreement; sub-rule (3) fixes the time; sub-rule (4) requires proof of payment; and sub-rule (5) carries the fee slabs of ten, fifteen and twenty lakh rupees by reference to the amount of international transaction entered into or proposed to be undertaken in respect of which the agreement is proposed. Rule 10J allows withdrawal at any time before the finalisation of the terms of the agreement, in Form No. 3CEE, with no refund of fee. Rule 10K(1) requires every application in Form No. 3CED to be complete in all respects and accompanied by the requisite documents; sub-rules (2) to (5) are the deficiency procedure. The matter was decided on 2012-07-01 by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text). On those facts the CBDT Circulars & Instructions held as follows. The statutory position is that a defective Form 3CED is curable and a late one is not. Rule 10K(2) obliges the Director General or the competent authority to serve a deficiency letter before the expiry of one month from the date of receipt of the application where a defect is noticed, a relevant document is not attached, or the application is not in accordance with the understanding reached in a pre-filing consultation under rule 10H. Rule 10K(3) gives fifteen days from service to remove the deficiency or modify the application, extendable on application so that the total does not exceed thirty days. Rule 10K(4) allows an order that the application shall not be allowed to be proceeded with only where the defect is not removed in accordance with sub-rule (3), and rule 10K(5) provides that no such order shall be passed without providing an opportunity of being heard, and that where an application is not allowed to be proceeded with the fee paid shall be refunded. Nothing in rules 10G to 10K provides for extending the time in rule 10-I(3) or for condoning a late application.
The 2015 amendment is what makes the present shape of this part of the scheme intelligible. As rule 10-I(1) was first made, only a person "who has entered into a pre-filing consultation as referred to in rule 10H" could apply; the Income-tax (Third Amendment) Rules 2015 substituted "referred to in rule 10G" with effect from 14 March 2015, and the same amendment softened rule 10H(1) from "Every person" to "Any person" and from "shall" to "may". Pre-filing consultation thus moved from gateway to option. Rule 10K, however, still refers to an application not being in accordance with the understanding reached in a pre-filing consultation, which now reads as a ground that arises only where a consultation was in fact held. The refund asymmetry between rule 10J(3) and rule 10K(5) is deliberate on the face of the rules: an applicant who walks away loses his fee, an applicant whose application is turned back at the threshold does not. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The fee paid shall not be refunded on withdrawal of application by the applicant."
It was decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions on 2012-07-01 and is reported as Rules 10F to 10T made under s.92CC(9) of the Income-tax Act 1961, which took effect on 1 July 2012; rules 10-I(1), 10H and 10K amended by the Income-tax (Third Amendment) Rules 2015 with effect from 14 March 2015. Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them. A CBDT circular or instruction binds officers of the department but not the assessee and not the courts. Where a circular helps you, you may hold the department to it. Where it hurts you, it cannot override the Act or a judgment. On section Rule 10F, section Rule 10G, section Rule 10H, section Rule 10-I, section Rule 10J, section Rule 10K, section 92CC, section 92CC(9), 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. The statutory position is that a defective Form 3CED is curable and a late one is not. Rule 10K(2) obliges the Director General or the competent authority to serve a deficiency letter before the expiry of one month from the date of receipt of the application where a defect is noticed, a relevant document is not attached, or the application is not in accordance with the understanding reached in a pre-filing consultation under rule 10H. Rule 10K(3) gives fifteen days from service to remove the deficiency or modify the application, extendable on application so that the total does not exceed thirty days. Rule 10K(4) allows an order that the application shall not be allowed to be proceeded with only where the defect is not removed in accordance with sub-rule (3), and rule 10K(5) provides that no such order shall be passed without providing an opportunity of being heard, and that where an application is not allowed to be proceeded with the fee paid shall be refunded. Nothing in rules 10G to 10K provides for extending the time in rule 10-I(3) or for condoning a late application. It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section Rule 10F, section Rule 10G, section Rule 10H, section Rule 10-I, section Rule 10J, section Rule 10K, section 92CC, section 92CC(9) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Not applicable — statutory text. 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. Do not treat a pre-filing consultation as a precondition. Rule 10H is a request in Form No. 3CEC, and rule 10H(6) says in terms that it binds neither the Board nor the person and is not to be taken as an application. File the fee with the application and the proof of payment with it — rule 10-I(4) and (5). The slab is ten lakh rupees up to a hundred crore of transaction value, fifteen lakh up to two hundred crore and twenty lakh above that. If a deficiency letter comes, diarise fifteen days from service, and apply for the extension in good time; rule 10K(3) caps the total at thirty days and the cap is absolute. If an order under rule 10K(4) is threatened, ask for the rule 10K(5) hearing, and if the application is not allowed to proceed, claim the refund of fee that the same sub-rule gives. Distinguish withdrawal from rejection. Rule 10J lets the applicant withdraw at any time before the terms are finalised, in Form No. 3CEE — but rule 10J(3) says the fee is not refunded on withdrawal, where rule 10K(5) says it is refunded where the application is not allowed to proceed.
Still good law. Rules 10F, 10G, 10H, 10-I, 10J and 10K as set out here are the text the Income-tax Department currently publishes, each page stamped 13 December 2025. The department's footnotes record the Income-tax (Third Amendment) Rules 2015, with effect from 14 March 2015, as having substituted "referred to in rule 10G" for "who has entered into a pre-filing consultation as referred to in rule 10H" in rule 10-I(1), as having made the two substitutions in rule 10H, as having inserted rule 10K(5), and as having inserted clauses (ba) and (ha) in rule 10F. The department's footnote to s.92CC confirms rules 10F to 10T and Forms 3CEC to 3CEF as the current prescribed scheme. Nothing was found showing any of these rules omitted or further substituted. 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.
The rule numbers are easy to get wrong and one of them is commonly misdescribed. Rule 10F is the definitions rule — "Meaning of expressions used in matters in respect of advance pricing agreement" — and not the pre-filing consultation rule. Pre-filing consultation is rule 10H and is made in Form No. 3CEC; the application for the agreement is rule 10-I and is made in Form No. 3CED; withdrawal is rule 10J in Form No. 3CEE; and the annual compliance report is rule 10-O in Form No. 3CEF. Rule 10-I(3) is set out here in summary because the department's page returned it in that form; the substance is that a continuing transaction must be applied for before the first day of the relevant previous year and any other transaction before it is undertaken, and a reader relying on the exact wording should read the rule itself. No decided case on a defective or late Form 3CED, or on rule 10H, could be found. indiankanoon was searched on 16 September 2026 for "3CED" with "advance pricing"; for "pre-filing consultation" with transfer pricing restricted to Tribunal decisions, which returned nothing at all; and for "3CEC" or "3CEE" or "3CEF" with advance pricing, which returned only the Income-tax Rules themselves. The three decisions returned by the first of those searches were opened. In WNS Global Services (ITAT Mumbai, 6 December 2021) and Virtusa Consulting Services (Madras High Court, 4 February 2021) the reference is to the transfer pricing report and to a tested party, not to an advance pricing agreement application; in HSBC Electronic Data Processing India (ITAT Hyderabad, 17 July 2019) the form referred to is the Form 3CEF annual compliance report. None of them decides anything about Form 3CED. An earlier round of searching in a separate pass produced the same result. 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 statutory position is that a defective Form 3CED is curable and a late one is not. Rule 10K(2) obliges the Director General or the competent authority to serve a deficiency letter before the expiry of one month from the date of receipt of the application where a defect is noticed, a relevant document is not attached, or the application is not in accordance with the understanding reached in a pre-filing consultation under rule 10H. Rule 10K(3) gives fifteen days from service to remove the deficiency or modify the application, extendable on application so that the total does not exceed thirty days. Rule 10K(4) allows an order that the application shall not be allowed to be proceeded with only where the defect is not removed in accordance with sub-rule (3), and rule 10K(5) provides that no such order shall be passed without providing an opportunity of being heard, and that where an application is not allowed to be proceeded with the fee paid shall be refunded. Nothing in rules 10G to 10K provides for extending the time in rule 10-I(3) or for condoning a late application.
TaxSphere, “Form 3CED — a defective or late APA application”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-form-3ced-rule-10-i-and-rule-10k-a-defective-or-late-apa-application/ (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.
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?
The Board wants to revise, or to cancel, my advance pricing agreement. On what grounds can it, and what am I entitled to before it does?
The Board says my advance pricing agreement was obtained by misrepresentation. What can it actually do, and what happens to the years the agreement covered?
Your APA year has been reopened and the officer has himself re-examined whether you complied with the APA. Can he do that without a compliance audit by the Transfer Pricing Officer?
