TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court ruling expands Tribunal's jurisdiction to consider arm's length & Rate issues in pending appeals</h1> <h3>PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED, UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED Versus THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-2, THE DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX</h3> PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED, UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED Versus THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-2, THE DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX - TMI Issues:Impugning directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel-2 (DRP) dated 20.07.2018; Incorporation of DRP's directions in Assessment Orders; Question of arm's length and Rate in Draft Assessment Order; Jurisdiction of DRP; Appellate remedy on the Rate issue.Analysis:The petitioners challenged the directions issued by the DRP on 20.07.2018. The Senior Counsel argued that Assessment Orders were passed during the pendency of the writ petitions, incorporating DRP's directions. The Assessing Officer's opinion in the Draft Assessment Order regarding the arm's length and the Rate was disputed. The DRP examined the arm's length issue, leading to the impugned Assessment Orders, but did not address the Rate issue's jurisdiction.The petitioners expressed concern that the Department might limit the appellate Tribunal's consideration to the arm's length issue only, excluding the Rate issue. They sought clarification to avoid being deprived of appellate remedy on the Rate matter. The respondents contended that the petitioners must utilize the statutory remedy available, emphasizing the Tribunal's authority to consider both the arm's length and Rate questions in the pending appeals.The Court, considering the circumstances and the Department's acknowledgment that the Rate issue could be addressed in the pending appeals, ruled in favor of the petitioners. It held that the appellate Tribunal should have no hindrance in considering the petitioners' grounds, including the Rate issue. Consequently, the petitions were disposed of, granting the petitioners liberty to pursue their appeals concerning the Rate issue.The judgment ensured that the petitioners could fully avail their appellate remedy by allowing the Tribunal to consider both the arm's length and Rate issues in the pending appeals. The Court's decision removed any potential impediment that could have restricted the Tribunal's jurisdiction, safeguarding the petitioners' rights to challenge the Assessment Orders comprehensively.
TaxTMI 