Section 92CA of the Act provides that the Assessing Officer, if he considers it necessary or expedient to do so, may with the previous approval of Commissioner of Income tax, refer the matter of determination of Arm’s Length Price in respect of an international transaction to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). Once reference is made to the TPO, TPO is competent to exercise all powers that are available to the Assessing Officer under sub-section (3) of Section 92C for determination of ALP and consequent adjustment. Further under section 92E of the Act, there is reporting requirement on the taxpayer and the taxpayer is under obligation to file an audit report in prescribed form before the Assessing Officer (AO) containing details of all international transactions undertaken by the taxpayer during the year.
This audit report is the primary document with the Assessing Officer, which contains the details of international transactions undertaken by the taxpayer. If the assessee does not report such a transaction in the report furnished under section 92E then the Assessing Officer would normally not be aware of such an International Transaction so as to make a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer. The Transfer Pricing Officer may notice such a transaction subsequently during the course of proceeding before him. In absence of specific power, the determination of Arm’s Length Price by the Transfer Pricing Officer would be open to challenge even though the basis of such an action is non-reporting of transaction by the taxpayer at first instance.
It is proposed to amend the section 92CA of the Act retrospectively to empower Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine Arm’s Length Price of an international transaction noticed by him in the course of proceedings before him, even if the said transaction was not referred to him by the Assessing Officer, provided that such international transaction was not reported by the taxpayer as per the requirement cast upon him under section 92E of the Act.
This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st June, 2002.
It is also proposed to provide an explanation to effect that due to retrospectivity of the amendment no reopening of any proceeding would be undertaken only on account of such an amendment.
This amendment will take effect from 1st July, 2012.
Do you think CBDT should extend Tax Audit Report and relevant ITR Due Date? Please Comment, Vote, Retweet and Like.— Tax Guru (@taxguru_in) September 18, 2018