CategoriesSBC

Implications of Secondary Adjustment u/s 92CE

Implications of Secondary Adjustment u/s 92CE

Home > Implications of Secondary Adjustment u/s 92CE

Implications of Secondary Adjustment u/s 92CE

Implications of Secondary Adjustment

Foresight for Taxpayers

Taxpayers must adopt a forward-looking approach to manage secondary adjustment risks under Section 92CE. Any primary adjustment—whether voluntary, audit-driven, or arising from APA, Safe Harbour, or MAP—must be closely reviewed to identify “excess money” retained by foreign AEs. This amount must be repatriated to India within prescribed time to avoid it being treated as a deemed loan, triggering notional interest under Rule 10CB. Where repatriation is not feasible, opting to pay a one-time additional tax at 20.9664% offers a clean exit from continued compliance and interest exposure. A proactive year-end transfer pricing review is critical to ensure alignment, minimize tax risks, and safeguard against future disputes.

Primary Adjustment

A Primary Adjustment refers to modifying the transfer price of an international transaction to align with the arm’s length principle. It arises when there is a need to correct the reported income of the taxpayer due to non-compliance with the arm’s length principle. 

Statutory Triggers for Primary Adjustment u/s 92CE(1)

Statutory Triggers for Primary Adjustment u/s 92CE(1)

Implications of Secondary Adjustment

Secondary Adjustment

A Secondary Adjustment refers to an adjustment in the books of accounts of the taxpayer and its Associated Enterprise (AE) to reflect the actual allocation of profits consistent with the transfer price determined as a result of a primary adjustment.

Secondary Adjustment Provisions u/s 92CE are attracted in the following cases:

– The amount of Primary Adjustment is exceeding Rs. 1 Crore.

– The Primary Adjustment is made not relate to AY 2016-17 (FY 2015-16) or earlier.

Where applicable, the primary adjustment amount must be repatriated to India within prescribed time. If not, the excess money is deemed to be an advance by the taxpayer to the AE.

In such cases, the taxpayer must compute and offer to tax the notional interest on the deemed advance, following the methodology prescribed under Rule 10CB(2) of the Income-tax Rules.

Repatriation is the transfer of funds or assets from a foreign country back to the home country. In taxation, it usually involves bringing back profits, dividends, or capital earned overseas.

Countries may adopt different approaches to secondary adjustments:

1. Deemed Dividend: 

Excess profits treated as dividends distributed to the parent entity, possibly subject to withholding tax.

2. Deemed Loan:

Excess profits treated as a loan from one AE to another; interest imputed accordingly.

3. Capital Contribution:

Recognizes excess profits as equity infusion.

India has adopted the Deemed Loan Approach under Section 92CE to address cases of non-repatriation.

Implications of Secondary Adjustment

Time limit for repatriation of excess money and Computation of 90 days – Rule 10CB (1)

time limit

Interest Rate on Excess Money – Rule 10CB(2)

(i) Where the international transaction is denominated in Indian rupee – One-year MCLR of SBI On 1st April of PY +3.25%(325 BPS).

(ii) where the international transaction is denominated in foreign currency – 6 Months LIBOR on 30th September of PY + 3%(300 BPS).

Alternative to Secondary Adjustment

Section 92CE permits the assessee to pay a final additional tax of 18% (effective 20.97% including surcharge 12% and cess 4%) on unrepatriated excess money to avoid secondary adjustments and interest beyond the tax payment date.

This tax is final, with no further deductions or credits permitted under the Income-tax Act.

 

CategoriesSBC Transfer Pricing

Transfer Pricing Assessment Procedure

Transfer Pricing Assessment Procedure

Home > Transfer Pricing Assessment Procedure

Transfer Pricing Assessment Procedure

Transfer Pricing Assessment Procedure

Foresight for Taxpayers

It’s crucial for taxpayers to effectively manage domestic litigation through proactive foresight at every stage—from pre-litigation assessment to final resolution and enforcement. Taxpayers should maintain robust documentation, assess litigation risks early, and align their positions with judicial precedents and departmental guidance.

Knowing the litigation procedure is not optional—it’s essential. A single misstep in procedural compliance, such as missing a timeline or filing the wrong form, can lead to dismissal or weaken the case. Awareness and preparedness are as important as the technical position itself. Timely responses to notices, strategic decision-making on appeals, and readiness for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as the DRP or settlement schemes can significantly reduce prolonged litigation.

A well-structured litigation strategy not only mitigates potential exposure but also ensures consistency in legal positions across assessment years, ultimately contributing to efficient dispute resolution and improved outcomes. The CBDT’s Instruction No. 3/2016 lays out clear parameters for risk-based scrutiny—providing taxpayers with visibility into what triggers an assessment.

CBDT Instruction No. 3/2016: Framework for Risk-Based Selection and Referral of TP Cases

CBDT Instruction No. 3/2016 marks a significant transition from the earlier monetary threshold- based approach (as per Instruction No. 15/2015) to a risk-based selection mechanism for Transfer Pricing (TP) audits.

If a case is selected for scrutiny under TP risk parameters (either via CASS or manual selection), the Assessing Officer (AO) must mandatorily refer the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).

The AO is barred from conducting TP analysis independently in such cases.

The AO must also refer the case to the TPO even if selected on non-TP parameters, if any of the following is observed:

– Non-filing of Form 3CEB (Accountant’s Report)

– Non-disclosure of international transactions or Specified Domestic Transactions (SDTs) in the report

– Prior TP adjustment of INR 10 crore or more in earlier years, upheld or under appeal

– Findings from search/seizure/survey indicating TP issues

This instruction prioritizes complex and high-impact TP cases instead of just high transaction value.

Reduces subjective referrals and avoids unnecessary TP litigation.

Acknowledges that TP is a specialized function—to be handled by trained TPOs only.

Targets multi-jurisdictional transactions, especially those involving intangible assets or group synergies, as high-risk.

Transfer Pricing Assessment Procedure

Domestic Litigation Cycle

Domestic Litigation Cycle

Referral to TPO: In case of international transactions, the AO refers the matter to the TPO under Section 92CA(1).

TPO Order: TPO examines the arm’s length nature of international transactions and issues a TPO order with proposed adjustments, if any.

Draft Assessment Order: Based on the TPO’s findings, the AO issues a draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) for eligible assessee.

Filing of Objections with DRP u/s 144C(2): The assessee has 30 days to accept the draft order or file objections with the DRP u/s 144C(2). If DRP objections are filed, the AO cannot pass the final order until DRP directions are received. DRP issues directions within 9 months, after which the AO passes the final order in line with those directions.

Final Assessment Order: If no objections are filed, the AO passes the final order as per the draft order.

Transfer Pricing Assessment Procedure

Appeal before CIT(A): After the final order is passed, if the assessee is aggrieved, an appeal can be filed before the CIT (A) within 30 days of receipt of the final order. CIT(A) reviews and disposes of the appeal, typically within 1 to 2 years.

Appeal before ITAT: If still dissatisfied, the assessee may file a appeal to the ITAT within 60 days of the CIT(A) order.

Appeal to High Court and Supreme Court: Further appeals can be made to the High Court within 120 days and Supreme Court within 90 days on substantial questions of law.

Litigation Timeline: The entire litigation cycle, if pursued fully, can span 8 to 15 years depending on the complexity and jurisdiction.

Emerging TP Litigation Issues 

Emerging TP Litigation Issues

Transfer Pricing Assessment Procedure

Steps to Avoid TP Litigation

Steps to Avoid TP Litigation

How can SBC assist you?

With a strong hold on Indian transfer pricing controversy management and emerging TP disputes, SBC has a proven track record of litigation wins and supporting TP clientele with a result-oriented approach and cost-benefit analysis. We can support your business with the following aspects:

  • Representation before various forums, including drafting appeals and submissions.
  • Strategizing the approach before tax authorities, considering facts and judicial precedents.
  • Case Law Compilations for specific TP disputes, leveraging our TP knowledge database and research repositories.
  • Transfer Pricing Health Check-Up to avoid or mitigate risks.
  • TP Due Diligence and Risk Assessment.
  • Evaluation of alternative dispute resolution and prevention mechanisms for repeated or evolving TP disputes.