Section 92B

Section 92B — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 92B, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• PCIT v Veer Gems High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The TPO says I control the foreign party in substance, so we are associated enterprises. Is de facto control enough under s.92A?
  No. s.92A(1) and s.92A(2) have to be read together. Sub-section (2) is not a list of examples of the participation described in sub-section (1) — it controls what counts as participation, so unless one of its clauses is actually satisfied, de facto or even de jure participation in the capital, management or control of the other enterprise does not make the two enterprises associated enterprises, and the transfer pricing machinery never starts.
• Indorama Synthetics (India) Ltd v Additional CIT High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  The Assessing Officer referred my case to the TPO in a one-paragraph letter without dealing with my objection that there was no international transaction at all. Can I attack the reference itself?
  Yes. The Delhi High Court held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction, even prima facie, that there IS an international transaction or specified domestic transaction is a sine qua non for a reference under s.92CA(1); where the assessee raises a threshold objection to jurisdiction, the officer must deal with it and must give a hearing before recording his satisfaction. The three references were set aside and the officer directed to decide afresh after hearing the assessee. The Court concurred with the Bombay High Court in Vodafone India Services and declined to follow the contrary Gujarat decision in Veer Gems, noting that CBDT Instruction No. 3 of 2016 has itself adopted the Bombay position.
• Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt Ltd v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayerUnder appeal
  The TPO says my advertising and marketing spend built my foreign parent's brand and has added a mark-up. There is no agreement with the parent about it. Can he do that?
  No. The Delhi High Court held that before Chapter X can be used at all, the Revenue must show an international transaction exists. For advertising, marketing and promotion spend that means showing an agreement, arrangement or understanding with the associated enterprise obliging the Indian company to spend excessively to promote the foreign brand. It cannot be inferred from shareholding, from the incidental benefit to the brand owner, or from the bright line test, which Sony Ericsson had already rejected. There is no machinery provision to identify or price such a transaction. The assessee's appeals were allowed and the Revenue's dismissed.
• CIT v Cotton Naturals (I) P Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I lent dollars to my overseas subsidiary — must the arm's length interest be benchmarked against Indian lending rates because I am the Indian lender?
  No. The Delhi High Court held on 27 March 2015 that the arm's length interest on a loan to an associated enterprise is the market determined rate for the currency in which the loan is to be repaid, not the rate prevailing in the country of residence of either party. The loan here was advanced and repayable in US dollars, so Indian prime lending rates were irrelevant; interest rates on rupee loans reflect the Reserve Bank's policy and say nothing about a dollar debt. The 4 per cent charged by the assessee was upheld, the adjustment to 12.20 per cent set aside, and the same parameters were held to apply to inbound and outbound loans alike.
• Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India P Ltd v CIT High CourtCuts both waysUnder appeal
  The TPO says my advertising spend is higher than comparables and has added the excess as brand building for my foreign parent. Can he do that?
  Not by that route. The bright line test — treating advertising, marketing and promotion spend above a comparable's level as a separate transaction of brand building for the foreign associated enterprise — has no statutory mandate, and the parameters the Special Bench laid down in L.G. Electronics do not bind either side. The Delhi High Court set the Tribunal's approach aside as based on an erroneous legal standard and sent the matters back for fresh consideration.
• Shell India Markets P Ltd v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The TPO says we issued shares to our parent too cheaply. Can he tax the shortfall?
  No. The issue of equity to a non-resident parent is on capital account and gives rise to no income, and Chapter X is machinery for computing income at arm's length, not a charge. With no income there is nothing for the transfer pricing machinery to work on, and re-characterising the alleged shortfall as an interest-bearing loan has no statutory foundation.
• Vodafone India Services P Ltd v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayer
  We issued shares to our foreign parent at a premium the Transfer Pricing Officer says is too low. Can he tax the shortfall as income under the transfer pricing provisions?
  No. The Bombay High Court held that the issue of equity shares at a premium by an Indian company to its non-resident holding company is a capital account transaction that gives rise to no income, so Chapter X cannot be applied at all. Chapter X is a machinery provision for arriving at the arm's length price; the charge must be found in sections 4 and 5 and in one of the heads of income. There being no charge, express or implied, on the premium not received, the reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer, his order, the draft assessment order and the Dispute Resolution Panel's order were quashed as without jurisdiction.
• Tech Mahindra Ltd v DCIT — two independent answers to a secondary adjustment: the assessment year commenced before 1 April 2016, so the first proviso to s.92CE(1) shuts the section out; and there was no surviving primary adjustment for a consequential adjustment to attach to ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The TPO has re-characterised a payment to my associated enterprise as an interest-free loan and imputed notional interest on it, calling it a consequential adjustment. My year is well before 2016 and the underlying adjustment was itself deleted. Can he do that?
  No, on either of two grounds, and the ITAT Mumbai gave both on 24 August 2026 for assessment year 2008-09. First, there was nothing left for the imputed interest to attach to: the primary adjustment of Rs 440.12 crores on the exclusivity payment "was not ultimately made in the final assessment, pursuant to the directions of the Ld. DRP and after verification by the Ld.AO", and "Consequently, there was no surviving primary adjustment to which a consequential adjustment on account of notional interest could attach". Second, and independently, the year was out of range: "A.Y. 2008-09 is an assessment year commencing prior to 01/04/2016. Consequently, in view of proviso (ii) to section 92CE(1) of the Act, the provisions relating to secondary adjustment were not applicable to the transaction under consideration." The Tribunal deleted the notional-interest adjustment of Rs 72.34 lakhs on the exclusivity payment and the adjustment of Rs 69.82 crores on the upfront discount of Rs 524.93 crores carried forward from assessment year 2007-08, and applied the same reasoning mutatis mutandis to the transition fee. The appeal was partly allowed.
• VVF (India) Limited v NFAC — the secondary adjustment on a corporate guarantee deleted in the same order that sent the guarantee fee itself back to the TPO, and Rule 10CB's interest clock identified as running from the s.139(1) due date ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The TPO has fixed a guarantee commission rate I dispute AND imputed interest on the delay as a secondary adjustment. Can the secondary adjustment stand while the underlying rate is still being fought over?
  The ITAT Mumbai deleted it. On 14 February 2025, for assessment year 2020-21, the Tribunal remitted the corporate guarantee adjustment itself to the Assessing Officer and Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh adjudication in the light of the OECD's February 2020 report on the transfer pricing of financial transactions, holding that the Transfer Pricing Officer's use of external bank guarantee rates with a discount was "not in accordance with the transfer pricing principles". In the very next paragraph it dealt with the secondary adjustment separately and allowed the ground, noting "that as per rule 10CB computation of interest commences from the due date of filing the return of income" and that for the year under consideration that due date was 15 February 2021, and concluding that it did "not find any basis for making the secondary adjustment for the year under consideration". The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
• Statutory position — Rule 10CB: the five different starting points for the ninety-day repatriation clock, and the two SEPARATE interest rate bases — SBI one-year MCLR plus 325 basis points for a rupee transaction, six-month LIBOR plus 300 basis points for a foreign-currency one CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  My primary adjustment stands and the money is still with my overseas associated enterprise. When exactly do my ninety days start, and at what rate is the deemed advance to be charged interest?
  Rule 10CB(1) gives the repatriation window as "on or before ninety days" from a starting point that differs with the source of the primary adjustment: from the s.139(1) due date where the adjustment was made suo motu in the return; from the date of the order of the Assessing Officer or the appellate authority where the adjustment in that order was accepted; where the adjustment is determined by an APA, from the date of filing the s.139(1) return if the APA was entered into on or before the due date, and from the END OF THE MONTH in which the APA was entered into if it came later; from the s.139(1) due date where the safe harbour option was exercised; and from the date the Assessing Officer gives effect under rule 44H to a mutual agreement procedure resolution. Rule 10CB(2) then fixes two different rate bases, and they are not interchangeable: for a transaction denominated in INDIAN RUPEES the imputed per annum interest is "at the one year marginal cost of fund lending rate of State Bank of India as on 1st of April of the relevant previous year plus three hundred twenty five basis points"; for a transaction denominated in FOREIGN CURRENCY it is "at six month London Interbank Offered Rate as on 30th September of the relevant previous year plus three hundred basis points". Clause (ii) still names LIBOR. LIBOR settings have been permanently discontinued and no replacement benchmark has been substituted into this rule, so for recent previous years the foreign-currency limb prescribes a rate that may not exist for 30 September of the relevant year.
• Statutory position — rule 10CA: the dataset, the arm's length range from the thirty-fifth to the sixty-fifth percentile where there are six or more entries, the median where the price falls outside it, and the arithmetical mean under sub-rule (7) where there are fewer than six CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The Transfer Pricing Officer has rejected our margin and adopted the median of his comparables. When is he entitled to go to the median at all, how is the range built, and what happens if he is left with only four or five comparables?
  The range is built only where the dataset has six or more entries and the most appropriate method is not the profit split method or the other method. Rule 10CA(2) requires a dataset constructed by placing the prices in ascending order. Rule 10CA(4) then provides that where the most appropriate method applied is a method other than the method referred to in clause (d) or clause (f) of s.92C(1) and the dataset consists of six or more entries, "an arm's length range beginning from the thirty-fifth percentile of the dataset and ending on the sixty-fifth percentile of the dataset shall be constructed". Rule 10CA(5): if the price actually charged is within that range it "shall be deemed to be the arm's length price" — no adjustment. Rule 10CA(6): if it is outside the range, "the arm's length price shall be taken to be the median of the dataset". The median is therefore reached only on the footing that the range was properly constructed and the price fell outside it; there is no route to the median in a case where sub-rule (4) never applied. Where sub-rule (4) does not apply — fewer than six entries, or the profit split method or the other method — sub-rule (7) revives the older machinery: the arm's length price is the arithmetical mean of all the values in the dataset, subject to the proviso that if the variation does not exceed such percentage not exceeding three per cent as may be notified, the price actually charged is deemed to be the arm's length price. The thirty-fifth percentile, the sixty-fifth percentile and the median are all defined in sub-rule (8) on the same pattern, and the pattern is not the ordinary statistical one: each is the LOWEST value in the ascending dataset such that at least thirty-five, sixty-five or fifty per cent of the values are equal to or less than that value, with a proviso that if the number of values equal to or less than that value is a whole number, the percentile is the arithmetic mean of that value and the value immediately succeeding it.
• Statutory position — rule 10B(1)(e) and rule 10B(3): how the transactional net margin method is applied, and the second limb of rule 10B(3) under which reasonably accurate adjustments to eliminate the material effects of differences are the statutory basis for working capital and risk adjustments CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The Transfer Pricing Officer has refused our working capital adjustment on the ground that no rule provides for it. Where in the Rules does the right to a working capital or risk adjustment come from, and does anything prescribe how it is computed?
  The right comes from rule 10B(3)(ii), read with rule 10B(1)(e)(iii); nothing in the Rules prescribes how either adjustment is computed. Rule 10B(3) is in two limbs and the word between them is "or": an uncontrolled transaction is comparable to an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction if "(i) none of the differences, if any, between the transactions being compared, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions are likely to materially affect the price or cost charged or paid in, or the profit arising from, such transactions in the open market; or (ii) reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the material effects of such differences." So a comparable is not disqualified by a material difference. It is disqualified only if the difference is material AND no reasonably accurate adjustment can be made for it. That second limb is the statutory basis for the working capital adjustment and the risk adjustment, and an officer who refuses an adjustment must, to be consistent, either say the difference is not material — in which case limb (i) is satisfied and the comparable stands unadjusted — or say the adjustment proposed is not reasonably accurate, which is a question of the assessee's computation and not of the existence of the power. Rule 10B(1)(e) carries the same idea inside the transactional net margin method itself: sub-clause (iii) requires that the net profit margin arising in comparable uncontrolled transactions "is adjusted to take into account the differences, if any, between the international transaction or the specified domestic transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions, which could materially affect the amount of net profit margin in the open market". On the words of sub-clause (iii) the adjustment is mandatory, not discretionary. What the Rules do not do is prescribe a method. Rule 10B, rule 10C and rule 10CA have all been read in full and none of them prescribes a formula, a base or a rate for computing a working capital adjustment or a risk adjustment.
• Statutory position — s.92C(2): the second proviso tolerance band, and the third proviso which disapplies the first and second provisos for any international transaction or specified domestic transaction undertaken on or after 1 April 2014 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The Transfer Pricing Officer's adjustment is within three per cent of our price. Can I still claim the tolerance band under the proviso to s.92C(2), or has that gone?
  For a transaction undertaken on or after 1 April 2014 the second proviso does not apply, because the third proviso disapplies it — but the band itself has not gone. It has moved into rule 10CA(7) and it now operates only where the arm's length range machinery does not. The third proviso to s.92C(2) reads: "Provided also that where more than one price is determined by the most appropriate method, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction or specified domestic transaction undertaken on or after the 1st day of April, 2014, shall be computed in such manner as may be prescribed and accordingly the first and second proviso shall not apply." The first proviso was the arithmetical mean rule; the second was the tolerance band — variation not exceeding such percentage not exceeding three per cent of the transaction price as may be notified, in which case the transaction price is deemed to be the arm's length price. The prescribed manner is rule 10CA. Where rule 10CA(4) applies, six or more entries and a method other than profit split or the other method, the answer is the range and there is no band at all: within the range the price is deemed to be the arm's length price under rule 10CA(5), outside it the arm's length price is the median under rule 10CA(6). Where rule 10CA(4) does not apply, rule 10CA(7) gives the arithmetical mean and carries its own proviso in the same words as the old second proviso, and it is under that proviso, read with the third proviso to s.92C(2), that the band is now notified. The current notification is Notification No. 157/2025 dated 6 November 2025, S.O. 5053(E), issued expressly under "the third proviso to sub-section (2) of section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with the proviso to sub-rule (7) of rule 10CA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962", and it fixes the variation at one per cent of the transaction price in respect of wholesale trading and three per cent in all other cases, for assessment year 2025-2026.
• Statutory position — section 94A: the consequences of dealing with a person located in a notified jurisdictional area, and whether any area is notified today CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client is remitting money to a company in a low-tax jurisdiction. Does section 94A apply, and is any country actually notified as a notified jurisdictional area at the moment?
  Section 94A lets the Central Government notify a country or territory as a notified jurisdictional area having regard to the lack of effective exchange of information, and once notified the consequences are severe and automatic: all parties to a transaction with a person located there are deemed associated enterprises, the transaction is deemed an international transaction so the entire transfer-pricing machinery applies, deductions are barred unless prescribed authorisations and documents are furnished, unexplained receipts from such a person are deemed to be income, and withholding is at the highest of the rate in force, the rate in the relevant provision and thirty per cent. The only notification under section 94A(1) that could be located was Notification No. 86/2013 notifying Cyprus, and it was rescinded by Notification No. 114/2016 with retrospective effect from 1 November 2013. No subsisting notification was found and no departmental list of notified jurisdictional areas could be opened, so nothing here certifies that no jurisdiction is notified today — section 94A should be neither treated as live against a jurisdiction nor written off as a dead letter without checking the current list.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.