2014 (8) TMI 1016 - HC - Income Tax

High Court affirms Tribunal's decision on Income Tax Act challenges, dismissing revenue's appeal.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus M/s SAP LABS PVT LTD

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding challenges under the Income Tax Act. It dismissed the revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's ... Revision u/s 263 - Transfer Pricing Authority has accepted valuation by the Assessing Authority determining the arm’s length price - ITAT set aside the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner under Section 263 - Held that:- Day the reference was made by the Assessing Authority to the Transfer Pricing Authority, there was no return pending for consideration by him and therefore, the very reference was bad. Even otherwise, the said Transfer Pricing Authority did not find fault with the adjudication of determining arm s length price by the Assessing Authority. In those circumstances, the Commissioner committed an error in exercising his power under Section 263 of the Act and the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the said order. Therefore, we do not see any merit in appeal - Decided against revenue Issues:1. Challenge to Tribunal's order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.2. Validity of the Transfer Pricing Officer's order under Section 92CA of the Act.3. Commissioner's jurisdiction to set aside Assessing Authority's order.4. Tribunal's decision on the Commissioner's jurisdiction.Analysis:1. The High Court addressed the challenge to the Tribunal's order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, where the revenue appealed against the Tribunal's decision setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner. The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 2002-03, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, notices were received under Section 148 and Section 92CA of the Act from the Transfer Pricing Officer. The Commissioner invoked power under Section 263, setting aside the Assessing Authority's order as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue's interest. The Tribunal held that since the Transfer Pricing Authority accepted the valuation by the Assessing Authority, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere under Section 263. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision.2. The Court examined the validity of the Transfer Pricing Officer's order under Section 92CA of the Act. It was noted that at the time of issuing the notice under Section 92CA, no valid return was pending, rendering the reference made by the Assessing Authority questionable. Despite this, the Transfer Pricing Authority accepted the pricing determined by the Assessing Authority. The Court highlighted that the absence of a pending return for consideration on the day of the reference raised doubts on the validity of the entire process.3. Regarding the Commissioner's jurisdiction to set aside the Assessing Authority's order, the Court emphasized that the Transfer Pricing Authority did not find fault with the determination of the arm's length price by the Assessing Authority. The Commissioner's exercise of power under Section 263 was deemed erroneous in this context. The Court concluded that the Commissioner's decision to intervene was unwarranted, leading to the Tribunal rightfully interfering with the order.4. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision on the Commissioner's jurisdiction. It concluded that the absence of a pending return for consideration at the time of the reference to the Transfer Pricing Authority, coupled with the lack of fault found in the Assessing Authority's determination of the arm's length price, justified the Tribunal's intervention. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal's decision in both the primary and consequential orders.