Extension for transfer pricing cases left out in Recent CBDT Press Release?

An analytical note on the interplay of Sections 139(1), 44AB, and 92E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the wake of CBDT Press Release dated 29 Oct., 2025 about announcement of extension of furnishing of ITR. As of now, the extension may not apply to ITRs covered by transfer pricing audits. The author calls for a clarification from the CBDT in this regard.

1. Introduction

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) recently issued a press release extending the due date for furnishing the Return of Income for Assessment Year (AY) 2025-26. While such extensions have become a familiar annual feature, this year’s announcement contains a nuanced legal anomaly concerning the linkage between the “due date” under Section 139(1) and the “specified date” under Section 44AB. The wording of the press release, when read alongside statutory definitions, appears to cover only a segment of taxpayers, leaving certain categories—particularly those subject to transfer pricing (TP) audit—outside its explicit ambit.

This article analyses the statutory framework, the CBDT communication, and the resulting interpretive issue that has arisen, with a view to clarifying how the compliance timelines technically interplay.

2. Statutory Framework — Understanding the Building Blocks

The due date for filing the return of income is prescribed in Explanation 2 to Section 139(1). This provision lays down distinct timelines for different categories of assessees, as summarised below:

Thus, Clause (a) covers entities requiring audit under Section 44AB or other laws, while Clause (aa) exclusively covers those subject to Transfer Pricing audit under Section 92E.

Next, Explanation (ii) to Section 44AB defines the term “specified date” as:

“…the date one month prior to the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of Section 139.”

This definition is crucial. It establishes that the “specified date” for filing the audit report (Form 3CD) is not an independent date fixed by Section 44AB, but a derivative date—calculated by moving one month backward from the Section 139(1) due date applicable to the assessee.

Therefore:

• If the Section 139(1) due date is 31 October, the specified date becomes 30 September.
• If the Section 139(1) due date is 30 November (as for TP assessees), the specified date becomes 31 October.

This statutory design ensures that the tax audit report precedes the income-tax return by a month, enabling assessees to incorporate audit findings into their ITR.

3. The CBDT Press Release — The Present Extension

The CBDT Press Release dated 29 October 2025 (as published on its official website and social media handle) states:

“The due date for furnishing the Return of Income under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2025-26, which is 31st October 2025, stands extended to 10th December 2025.

The ‘specified date’ for furnishing the Tax Audit Report for the previous year 2024-25 is further extended to 10th November 2025.”

This statement mirrors the extensions issued in previous years but is worded with a notable specificity. The first sentence explicitly refers to the due date “which is 31st October 2025,” thereby referring only to Clause (a) assessees under Explanation 2 to Section 139(1).

Consequently, the extension of the “specified date” (i.e., the tax audit report deadline) to 10th November 2025 naturally follows from this clause—since the audit report date is linked to that same 31 October base date.

Interpretation and Implications

• Current situation (based on press release only):

♦ Due date under Section 139(1)(a): 31 Oct → 10 Dec 2025

♦ Specified date (audit report): 30 Sep → 10 Nov 2025

♦ Clause (aa) assessees (TP cases): No mention — so technically, their ITR due date remains 30 Nov 2025, and audit report due date 31 Oct 2025, unless the formal order states otherwise.

• Potential legal ambiguity:

If the notification mirrors the press release, TP assessees could be left in doubt about whether their Form 3CEB or Form 3CD (in TP cases) deadlines are automatically covered. A clarification would thus be necessary to avoid differential treatment between Clause (a) and Clause (aa) cases.

Brief plain-language note

1. The non-audit taxpayers (Clause (b)) no longer have the original 31 July deadline for AY 2025–26 — their filing deadline was extended to 15 September 2025.

2. Audited taxpayers (Clause (a)) now have the benefit of a later timetable — audit reports and returns were announced to push out to 10 November and 10 December 2025

3. Transfer-pricing taxpayers (Clause (aa)) were not explicitly covered in the latest extension announcement; therefore, their statutory chain of dates (audit/report one month earlier than return) remains in force until CBDT expressly says otherwise.

4. In practice, treat the 15 September date as binding for non-audit filers and continue to keep TP work on the original schedule until you see a formal order extending Clause (aa).

4. The Legal Interplay and the Emerging Anomaly

Here lies the subtle, yet legally significant, anomaly.

The CBDT press release extends the due date under Clause (a) but makes no mention of Clause (aa) assessees—those required to furnish the Form 3CEB (Transfer Pricing Report). Under the statute, these assessees have:

• Specified Date (Form 3CD) → 31 October 2025
• Due Date for Return (Form ITR) → 30 November 2025

Since the press release refers only to the 31 October category, the natural inference is that it pertains solely to Clause (a) taxpayers. The TP cases governed by Clause (aa) remain technically outside the scope of this communication.

Thus, unless the forthcoming CBDT notification or order under Section 119 explicitly extends both clauses, the extension legally applies only to non-TP assessees.

5. Consequence: Chain Effect Between Due Date and Specified Date

It is important to note that the Section 44AB “specified date” is not a separately notified calendar date—it automatically adjusts whenever the due date under Section 139(1) changes. The relationship is mechanical and consequential.

Hence, the sequence works as follows:

This table shows that the extension of the audit report filing date is a consequence of extending the return filing due date — not an independent or prior act.

In other words, CBDT’s statement that “the specified date is further extended” only confirms that both are tied together through the statutory formula.

However, since TP assessees’ base due date (30 November) was never extended in the first place, the formula yields no corresponding movement for them. Their “specified date” would, therefore, remain 31 October 2025.

6. Why This Distinction Matters

This apparent anomaly is not merely academic. The timelines determine several compliance-critical filings:

1. Form 3CD (Tax Audit Report) — under Section 44AB.

2. Form 3CEB (Transfer Pricing Report) — under Section 92E.

3. Return of Income (Form ITR 6 / 5 / 3) — under Section 139(1).

In TP cases, both Form 3CD and Form 3CEB are interdependent and often filed together. An extension for only one category, without clarity for the other, can create serious compliance uncertainty. For multinational groups and large corporates, audit sign-offs, board approvals, and foreign accountant certifications are all scheduled backward from these statutory dates.

Moreover, many ERP-based audit processes automatically align due-date parameters from the Income-tax portal’s validation logic. If the portal’s backend reflects the extended dates only for Clause (a) assessees, TP cases could technically face portal rejections for late filing, unless separately clarified.

7. The Expected Clarification

CBDT traditionally follows up its press releases with a formal order under Section 119(2)(a), extending statutory deadlines. The operative effect arises only from such order—not from the press release itself.

It is therefore expected that the forthcoming order will explicitly state:

“…for assessees covered under Clause (a) and Clause (aa) of Explanation 2 to Section 139(1)…”

Such wording will ensure that TP assessees are also covered by the same extension, maintaining parity across categories.

In previous years, such as in CBDT Order F. No. 225/132/2021/ITA-II dated 9 September 2021, the Board had indeed mentioned both Clause (a) and Clause (aa) explicitly. Hence, this year’s press release wording may merely be a drafting oversight, but until clarified, the legal position remains technically incomplete.

8. The Broader Compliance Implication

This situation once again highlights a recurring challenge in tax administration — where a seemingly minor variation in wording of a public communication can cause disproportionate compliance confusion.

While the CBDT has commendably provided relief by extending the timeline, professional advisors and corporate taxpayers must always distinguish between:

• (i) the press release (which is only informational), and
• (ii) the statutory order (which alone carries legal effect).

Practitioners should therefore avoid relying solely on the language of the press release until the actual notification is gazetted or uploaded on the income-tax website’s “Orders and Circulars” section.

9. Concluding Observation

The fine distinction between the “due date” under Section 139(1) and the “specified date” under Section 44AB is often overlooked in everyday practice. Yet, as the present press release shows, this linkage determines the compliance chain for thousands of entities.

At present, the wording confines the extension to Clause (a) assessees — that is, companies, firms, and other audited entities not involved in international or specified domestic transactions. Consequently, unless the subsequent CBDT notification explicitly includes Clause (aa) assessees (i.e., those required to furnish Form 3CEB), the original dates for TP cases technically remain unchanged — 31 October 2025 for the audit report and 30 November 2025 for the return of income.

It is, therefore, essential that the forthcoming notification ensures consistency and clarity in these compliance timelines. A uniform extension across both categories would not only eliminate interpretive uncertainty but also uphold the equity principle that similarly placed taxpayers should not face disparate statutory obligations merely due to procedural wording.

Although the present discussion is based solely on the CBDT Press Release dated 29 October 2025, it is worth emphasizing that the formal order under Section 119(2)(a) — which confers binding legal effect — is yet to be issued. Based on established precedent, it is highly likely that the forthcoming order will also cover Clause (aa) assessees, thereby rectifying the apparent anomaly and ensuring alignment of compliance timelines for all categories of taxpayers. Until such official notification is released, the analysis above represents only the technical position emerging from the language of the press release.