Court rules in favor of assessee on substantial legal question, dismissing revenue's appeals.

The court allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, answering substantial question of law 'H' in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. Consequently, the other substantial questions of law were rendered academic. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Limitation of directions by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).
2. Jurisdiction under Section 153C without handing over assets.
3. Recording of satisfaction under Section 153C.
4. Issuance of notice under Section 153C without proper application of mind.
5. Review of Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) order under Section 92CA(3).
6. Directions by DRP on Advertising, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenditure.
7. Validity of proceedings under Section 153C due to invalid requisition proceedings.
8. Validity of reference to TPO without incriminating material.
9. Jurisdiction of notices issued under Section 153C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation of Directions by DRP:
The court did not explicitly address this issue in the final judgment, as the resolution of substantial question of law 'H' rendered other questions academic.

2. Jurisdiction under Section 153C without Handing Over Assets:
The court did not explicitly address this issue in the final judgment, as the resolution of substantial question of law 'H' rendered other questions academic.

3. Recording of Satisfaction under Section 153C:
The court did not explicitly address this issue in the final judgment, as the resolution of substantial question of law 'H' rendered other questions academic.

4. Issuance of Notice under Section 153C without Proper Application of Mind:
The court did not explicitly address this issue in the final judgment, as the resolution of substantial question of law 'H' rendered other questions academic.

5. Review of TPO Order under Section 92CA(3):
The court did not explicitly address this issue in the final judgment, as the resolution of substantial question of law 'H' rendered other questions academic.

6. Directions by DRP on AMP Expenditure:
The court did not explicitly address this issue in the final judgment, as the resolution of substantial question of law 'H' rendered other questions academic.

7. Validity of Proceedings under Section 153C due to Invalid Requisition Proceedings:
The court did not explicitly address this issue in the final judgment, as the resolution of substantial question of law 'H' rendered other questions academic.

8. Validity of Reference to TPO without Incriminating Material:
The court did not explicitly address this issue in the final judgment, as the resolution of substantial question of law 'H' rendered other questions academic.

9. Jurisdiction of Notices Issued under Section 153C:
The court primarily addressed this issue. The assessee argued that the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Central Circle, Bengaluru, issued notices under Section 153C without proper jurisdiction, as the jurisdiction was conferred only on 20.07.2009, whereas the notices were issued on 11.05.2009. The court cited multiple judgments, including Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., and Commissioner of Income tax-1, Nagpur vs. Lalitkumar Bardia, to support the principle that any order passed without jurisdiction is invalid. The court concluded that the notices issued by the DCIT were without jurisdiction, rendering all subsequent proceedings void ab initio. Sections 292B and 292BB did not apply as they pertain to procedural defects, not substantive jurisdictional issues. The court also noted that the amendment to Section 124(3)(c) effective from 01.06.2016 was prospective and did not apply to the case.

Judgment:
The court allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, answering substantial question of law 'H' in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. Consequently, the other substantial questions of law were rendered academic. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

---