Section 92CC(9A)

Section 92CC(9A) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 92CC(9A), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Tetra Pak India Pvt Ltd v DCIT ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My APA has expired. The TPO now wants to benchmark an open year against the margin agreed in it. Can he?
  No. The Pune Bench held that comparing the operating profit margin agreed in an advance pricing agreement covering assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19 with the actual operating margin earned in assessment year 2020-21, which is not a covered year of that agreement, is inappropriate and against the provisions of the Act. Section 92CC(4) read with sub-section (9A) confines an agreement to the years specified in it, and the confinement runs against the department as much as against the assessee. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer and the TPO and the appeal was partly allowed.
• CBDT Circular No. 10/2015 — APA rollback CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  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?
  You cannot pick and choose: the applicant has to either apply for all the four years or not apply at all, subject only to the transaction not existing in a year or the rollback conditions failing in a year. Rollback is not available for a year in which the return was filed under s.139(4), nor where the Tribunal has finally disposed of the appeal on the arm's length price of that transaction, and it can never reduce the total income or increase the loss declared in the return.
• s.92CC(4) — the five-year APA term and the year outside it CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  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?
  Section 92CC(4) caps the agreement at such period not exceeding five consecutive previous years as may be specified in it, and s.92CC(3) gives the agreement its force only "in respect of which the advance pricing agreement has been entered into". Sub-section (9A) extends that backwards, but only so far: an agreement may, subject to prescribed conditions, determine the arm's length price or the attributable income for any period not exceeding four previous years preceding the first of the years covered by sub-section (4), and rule 10F(ha) calls those the rollback years. A year outside the five plus four is outside the agreement, and the Pune Bench has held in Tetra Pak India that the window works against the department too: the TPO may not benchmark an uncovered year against the margin agreed in the APA.

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.