Section 92CA(3AA) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section 92CA(3AA), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
ACIT v Citigroup Global Markets India Pvt Ltd
ITATCuts both waysNo later treatment found
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.
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.
