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>ITAT sets aside assessment order for failing to incorporate DRP directions on transfer pricing adjustments</h1> <h3>Hitachi Astemo Haryana Private Ltd. (formerly Showa India Private Ltd.) Versus DCIT, Circle 22 (2), Delhi.</h3> Hitachi Astemo Haryana Private Ltd. (formerly Showa India Private Ltd.) Versus DCIT, Circle 22 (2), Delhi. - TMI Issues involved:The judgment deals with the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2018-19, pursuant to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The main issues revolve around the conformity of the final assessment order with the binding directions of the DRP, the incorporation of DRP's directions in the assessment order, and the validity of the assessment order in light of the DRP's directions.Issue 1: Compliance with DRP's DirectionsThe appeal raised concerns regarding the final assessment order's compliance with the binding directions of the DRP. The Taxation Officer (TO) passed an order suggesting upward adjustments in the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transactions. The Assessing Officer (AO) incorporated the TO's recommendations in the draft assessment order but failed to comply with the DRP's directions issued under section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The final assessment order was passed without incorporating the DRP's directions due to the non-receipt of the order giving effect by the TO. This led to a legal challenge by the assessee, arguing that the final assessment order was not in conformity with the DRP's directions.Issue 2: Legal Validity of Assessment OrderThe legal validity of the final assessment order was questioned on the grounds that it did not conform to the binding directions of the DRP. The assessee contended that the AO's failure to receive and incorporate the order giving effect by the TO rendered the assessment order legally flawed. Citing relevant Tribunal decisions and a Karnataka High Court case, the assessee argued that passing an assessment order without incorporating the DRP's directions was not permissible under the law. In response, the Revenue relied on decisions of the Delhi and Madras High Courts, highlighting that similar cases did not result in the quashing of the entire proceedings but rather the setting aside of the assessment order for rectification.Judgment:After considering the arguments and case laws presented by both parties, the Tribunal referred to the decisions of the jurisdictional High Courts. It was noted that in cases where the final assessment order was passed without incorporating the DRP's directions, the High Courts remanded the matter to the DRP for compliance with the provisions of section 144C of the Act. Following the binding precedents, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to pass an order that incorporates the DRP's directions, which were to be given effect by the TO. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes, without the need to adjudicate on other grounds at that juncture.
TaxTMI 