Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2017 (2) TMI 1318 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal quashes assessment order due to limitation, invalid reference to TPO The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the assessment order on the ground of limitation. The cross-appeal of the revenue was dismissed ...
                          Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                              Tribunal quashes assessment order due to limitation, invalid reference to TPO

                              The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the assessment order on the ground of limitation. The cross-appeal of the revenue was dismissed as infructuous. The Tribunal's decision was based on the invalidity of the reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the consequent limitation period for completing the assessment.




                              Issues Involved:

                              1. Validity of reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) by the Assessing Officer (AO).
                              2. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions.
                              3. Method of determining ALP (CUP vs. TNMM).
                              4. Limitation period for completion of assessment.
                              5. Inclusion/exclusion of comparables in Transfer Pricing analysis.
                              6. Validity of assessment order based on TPO's findings.

                              Detailed Analysis:

                              1. Validity of Reference to TPO:

                              The assessee contended that the reference made by the AO to the TPO was erroneous and violated principles of natural justice. The AO referred the entire assessment to the TPO instead of specific international transactions as required by Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that no specific letter or communication referring the international transaction by the AO to the TPO was produced. The letter dated 14/03/2014 only communicated the approval from the DIT(TP) but did not specify any international transactions. The Tribunal concluded that the reference to the TPO was invalid and not in accordance with the mandate of Section 92CA.

                              2. Determination of ALP for International Transactions:

                              The assessee argued that the AO failed to determine the existence of specific international transactions before referring the matter to the TPO. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not identify any international transactions and referred the entire project office of the assessee to the TPO. This was contrary to the requirement of referring only the computation of ALP in relation to specific international transactions. The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO was bad in law as the AO did not follow the prescribed procedure.

                              3. Method of Determining ALP (CUP vs. TNMM):

                              The assessee claimed that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method was the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determining the ALP, whereas the AO adopted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). Detailed arguments were made by both parties regarding the appropriateness of the methods and the inclusion/exclusion of certain comparables. However, the Tribunal decided to first address the preliminary issue of the validity of the reference to the TPO before delving into the merits of the methods used.

                              4. Limitation Period for Completion of Assessment:

                              The Tribunal observed that since the reference to the TPO was invalid, the extended time for completion of assessment under Section 153(1) of the Act did not apply. Consequently, the assessment order should have been passed before 31st March 2014 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Tribunal held that the assessment was barred by limitation and quashed the assessment order on this ground.

                              5. Inclusion/Exclusion of Comparables in Transfer Pricing Analysis:

                              The revenue's cross-appeal challenged the exclusion of a comparable (M/s Ceragon Network India Ltd.) by the DRP. However, since the Tribunal quashed the assessment order on the ground of limitation, the cross-appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

                              6. Validity of Assessment Order Based on TPO's Findings:

                              Given that the reference to the TPO was held invalid, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order based on the TPO's findings was also invalid. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO did not follow the proper procedure in referring the matter to the TPO, leading to the assessment being barred by limitation.

                              Conclusion:

                              The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the assessment order on the ground of limitation. The cross-appeal of the revenue was dismissed as infructuous. The Tribunal's decision was based on the invalidity of the reference to the TPO and the consequent limitation period for completing the assessment.
                              Full Summary is available for active users!
                              Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                              Topics

                              ActsIncome Tax
                              No Records Found