Section 92CA(2C) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section 92CA(2C), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
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.
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.