Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the transfer pricing adjustment relating to specified domestic transactions was valid after omission of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the addition sustained by the Assessing Officer was liable to be deleted.
Analysis: The reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer had been made in the context of specified domestic transactions under section 92BA(i), and the adjustment was made under section 92CA(3). The Tribunal followed the binding view that, once clause (i) of section 92BA was omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, the omission operated so that the provision was treated as never having existed. In the absence of any contrary jurisdictional High Court ruling, the Tribunal applied the rule of precedent and accepted the view that the transfer pricing adjustment based on the omitted clause could not survive.
Conclusion: The deletion of the transfer pricing addition was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The assessment adjustment based on section 92BA(i) did not survive, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Omission of a charging or enabling provision without a saving clause renders the omitted provision inoperative as if it had not existed, and a transfer pricing adjustment founded solely on such omitted provision cannot be sustained.