Section 92D

Section 92D — the law in short

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

• DCIT v Priya Blue Industries P Ltd ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The AO has levied a s.271AA penalty saying I did not maintain transfer pricing documentation, without saying which documents. Does that penalty stand?
  No, on this decision. A penalty under s.271AA has to identify the information or document prescribed by s.92D read with rule 10D that was not maintained or furnished; a general assertion will not do, and here neither the assessment order nor the penalty order said which document was missing. The Tribunal gave a second and independent ground: the penalty was passed in a perfunctory manner without the requisite show-cause notice and without proper opportunity, the officer having called for rule 10D documents without naming any clause of the rule. That the transactions the penalty was levied on had not been adjusted by the Transfer Pricing Officer at all was added as a further point, not as the basis of the decision.
• ACIT v Dilipkumar V. Lakhi ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The TPO wants segment-wise profit and loss accounts for my AE and non-AE business and I cannot produce them. He has levied 2 per cent of the transaction value under s.271G. Can I resist it?
  Yes, where the failure is backed by a reasonable cause, because s.273B applies to s.271G. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of a Rs 56,72,162 penalty on a diamond trader who had furnished entity-level margins but could not split AE from non-AE segments, holding that in a trade where rough and polished diamonds move in mixed lots it is practically impossible to trace which rough stone became which polished stone, and that the assessee had substantially complied to the extent the trade allowed.
• Statutory position — s.286(7) with Rule 10DB(6): the country-by-country threshold is six thousand four hundred crore rupees, and it is tested against the consolidated group revenue of the accounting year PRECEDING the reporting accounting year CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  Our group's consolidated revenue crossed the country-by-country threshold this year but was below it last year. Do we have to file for this year?
  No — and the reason is the year the test looks at. Section 286(7) provides that the section does not apply to an international group for an accounting year "if the total consolidated group revenue, as reflected in the consolidated financial statement for the accounting year preceding such accounting year does not exceed the amount, as may be prescribed". The prescribed amount is in Rule 10DB(6), which fixes it at six thousand four hundred crore rupees. So the test is applied to the consolidated group revenue of the year BEFORE the reporting accounting year, not to the reporting accounting year's own revenue. A group whose consolidated revenue was below Rs 6,400 crore in the preceding accounting year is outside s.286 for the year in question however large its revenue becomes in that year; a group that was above it in the preceding year is inside s.286 for the year in question even if its revenue collapses. Rule 10DB(7) supplies the conversion rule where the consolidated revenue is in a foreign currency: the telegraphic transfer buying rate on the last day of the accounting year preceding the accounting year.
• Statutory position — s.92D(1)(ii) and s.92D(4) with Rule 10DA: the master file — PART A OF FORM 3CEAA IS FILED BY EVERY CONSTITUENT ENTITY EVEN IF NEITHER THRESHOLD IS CROSSED, and the two thresholds that both have to be crossed before Part B is due CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  Our group is nowhere near the master file thresholds. Do we still have to file anything under Rule 10DA?
  Yes. This is the most-missed compliance in Indian transfer pricing. Rule 10DA(3) says in terms: "The constituent entity shall furnish Part A of Form No. 3CEAA even if the conditions specified under sub-rule (1) are not satisfied." Every constituent entity of an international group files Part A, regardless of any threshold. Part B — the substantive master file information in clauses (a) to (n) of Rule 10DA(1) — is due only where BOTH conditions in sub-rule (1) are satisfied: (i) the consolidated group revenue of the international group for the accounting year, as reflected in its consolidated financial statement, exceeds FIVE HUNDRED CRORE RUPEES; AND (ii) the aggregate value of international transactions during the accounting year, as per the books of account, exceeds FIFTY CRORE RUPEES, or, in respect of purchase, sale, transfer, lease or use of intangible property, exceeds TEN CRORE RUPEES. The obligation itself comes from s.92D(1)(ii), which requires every person being a constituent entity of an international group to keep and maintain such information and document in respect of an international group as may be prescribed, and from s.92D(4), which requires the person referred to in that clause to furnish it to the authority prescribed under s.286(1) in the prescribed manner and by the prescribed date. Section 92D was substituted in this form by Act No. 23 of 2019 with effect from 1 April 2020; for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 the same obligation sat in a proviso to s.92D(1), and s.92D(4) then referred to "the person referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1)". Rule 10DA(2) fixes that date as the s.139(1) due date for the return of income, and Rule 10DA(4) allows one designated constituent entity to file for all of them, provided the designation is conveyed in Form No. 3CEAB to the Joint Director referred to in Rule 10DB(1) THIRTY DAYS BEFORE the due date for furnishing Form No. 3CEAA.
• Statutory position — s.271AA(2): a flat five hundred thousand rupees for failing to furnish the master file under s.92D(4), imposed by the PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY and not by the Assessing Officer — and how it differs from the two per cent penalty in s.271AA(1) CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  We did not file Form 3CEAA. Which penalty applies, who imposes it, and is it a percentage of anything?
  Section 271AA(2) provides: "If any person fails to furnish the information and the document as required under sub-section (4) of section 92D, the prescribed income-tax authority referred to in the said sub-section may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of five hundred thousand rupees." It is a flat figure — five lakh rupees — not a percentage, and the power is in the PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY under s.286(1), not in the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals). That is what distinguishes it from s.271AA(1), which is the older penalty: without prejudice to s.270A, s.271 or s.271BA, where a person in respect of an international transaction or specified domestic transaction fails to keep and maintain the information and document required by s.92D(1) or (2), or fails to report such transaction which he is required to do, or maintains or furnishes an incorrect information or document, the ASSESSING OFFICER OR COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) may direct payment of "a sum equal to two per cent of the value of each international transaction or specified domestic transaction entered into by such person". Both sub-sections are named in s.273B, so no penalty is imposable under either if the person proves there was reasonable cause for the failure.
• Statutory position — s.92BA: clause (i) was OMITTED with effect from 1 April 2017, so a s.40A(2)(b) payment is no longer a specified domestic transaction — what survives, the twenty crore threshold, and clause (va) added for s.115BAB companies CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The TPO has been asked to benchmark our payments to related parties under s.40A(2)(b). Is that still a specified domestic transaction at all?
  No. Clause (i) of s.92BA — "any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 40A" — was OMITTED by Act No. 7 of 2017 with effect from 1 April 2017, and the omitted words are set out in an amendment footnote, so there is no doubt what went. What survives is: clause (ii), any transaction referred to in s.80A; clause (iii), any transfer of goods or services referred to in s.80-IA(8); clause (iv), any business transacted between the assessee and another person as referred to in s.80-IA(10); clause (v), any transaction referred to in any other section under Chapter VI-A or s.10AA to which s.80-IA(8) or (10) applies; clause (va), any business transacted between the persons referred to in s.115BAB(6), inserted by Act No. 46 of 2019 with effect from 1 April 2020; and clause (vi), any other transaction as may be prescribed. The whole definition applies only "where the aggregate of such transactions entered into by the assessee in the previous year exceeds a sum of twenty crore rupees" — the word "twenty" having been substituted for "five" by the Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 1 April 2016.
• Statutory position — rule 10B(3): the Income-tax Rules expressly contemplate a comparability adjustment and prescribe NO method for computing one — a proved negative across rules 10A, 10AB, 10B, 10C, 10CA, 10D and 10TA and s.92F, with nothing in any CBDT circular, instruction or departmental transfer pricing page either CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The Transfer Pricing Officer has thrown out my working capital adjustment saying there is no prescribed method for it. Is he right that there is no prescribed method, and if he is, what does that do to the claim?
  He is right on the first half and wrong on the second. No provision of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 prescribes a formula, a base, a period, a source of interest rates or any other method for computing a working capital adjustment or a risk adjustment. Rules 10A, 10AB, 10B, 10C, 10CA, 10D and 10TA have each been read in full, and s.92F, and none of them does. But the absence of a method is not the absence of a power. Rule 10B(3) reads: "An uncontrolled transaction shall be 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." The two limbs are joined by "or", and limb (ii) is an express statutory contemplation of the adjustment. Rule 10B(1)(e)(iii) goes further inside the net margin method itself: 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" — the words are "is adjusted", not "may be adjusted". Rule 10C(2)(e) makes "the extent to which reliable and accurate adjustments can be made to account for differences" a statutory factor in selecting the most appropriate method, and rule 10D(1)(j) and (l) require the assessee to keep a record of "adjustments, if any, which were made to account for differences" and "details of the adjustments, if any, made to transfer prices". So the Rules name the adjustment four times over and never once say how to work it out. The expression "reasonably accurate" is not defined anywhere that has been found: not in rule 10A, which is the definitions rule for rules 10A to 10E, and not in s.92F, which is the definitions section for ss.92 to 92E.
• 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.
• Statutory position — s.286 with Rule 10DB: country-by-country reporting — who notifies in Form 3CEAC, who files the report in Form 3CEAD within twelve months, when the burden falls on the Indian constituent entity instead, and the alternate reporting entity route out CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  We are the Indian subsidiary of a foreign parent. Do we have to file a country-by-country report ourselves, or only tell the department who does, and by when?
  Two obligations, and they fall on different people. Under s.286(1), EVERY constituent entity resident in India whose parent entity is not resident in India must notify the prescribed authority whether it is the alternate reporting entity of the international group, or else give the details of the parent entity or alternate reporting entity and the country of which they are resident. Rule 10DB(2) requires that notification in Form No. 3CEAC, and it must be made TWO MONTHS PRIOR to the due date for furnishing the report under s.286(2). Under s.286(2), a parent entity or alternate reporting entity RESIDENT IN INDIA must furnish the report itself, "within a period of twelve months from the end of the said reporting accounting year", and Rule 10DB(3) prescribes Form No. 3CEAD for it. Under s.286(4), the burden shifts on to an Indian constituent entity that is not the reporting entity where the parent is resident in a country that does not require such a report, or with which India has no exchange agreement, or where a systemic failure has been intimated; Rule 10DB(4) gives it twelve months from the end of the reporting accounting year, or six months from the end of the month in which a systemic failure was intimated. The proviso to s.286(4) lets a group with several Indian constituent entities designate one to file, and Rule 10DB(5) requires that designation to be conveyed in Form No. 3CEAE. Section 286(5) provides a complete escape from sub-section (4) where an alternate reporting entity has filed the report with its own country's tax authority and five conditions are all satisfied, including that the said country has an exchange agreement with India and that the prescribed authority here has been informed under sub-section (1). Section 286(6) lets the prescribed authority call for information to test the accuracy of the report, by notice, within thirty days, extendable by a further period not exceeding thirty days on an application.

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.