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>High Court Pauses Appeals on Transfer Pricing Limits, Awaits Supreme Court's Guidance for Clarity in Tax Matters.</h1> <h3>Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 6, Mumbai Versus Dow Agroscience India Pvt. Ltd., Accenture Solutions Pvt. Ltd., DHL Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Atos India Pvt. Ltd., DSV Air and Sea Pvt. Ltd., Bristol-Myers Squibb India Pvt. Ltd., Colgate Palmolive India Ltd., Credit Suisse AG, Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd., Asus India Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The Bombay HC adjourned proceedings sine die in a batch of appeals concerning the limitation period for Transfer Pricing Officer orders under Section 92CA ... Period of limitation to pass an order under the provisions of Section 92CA - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has proceeded to follow the decision of M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd [2022 (4) TMI 808 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] We are informed that a special leave petition has been filed by the Revenue assailing the said decision of the Madras High Court, which is pending before the Supreme Court. We are of the opinion that interpretation of the provisions of Section 92CA and the interplay between the said provision and Section 153, insofar as the limitation to pass an order is concerned, are issues which are subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court, in the proceedings which we have referred hereinabove. Also, the order passed by this Court in PayPal Payments Private Ltd. [2024 (8) TMI 937 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] is the subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court. We accordingly adjourn these proceedings sine die with liberty to the parties to circulate the proceedings after appropriate orders are passed by the Supreme Court. Considering the conspectus as noted hereinabove, these appeals need to be taken up for admission after appropriate orders are passed by the Supreme Court. In the event we proceed otherwise, and hear these appeals on admission and assuming that we are required to admit the Revenue’s appeal, a cross appeal would be required to be filed by the assessee, which would add into the multiplicity of the proceedings. For such reason also, it would be appropriate to await the orders of the Supreme Court. Issues:Interpretation of provisions of Section 92CA and Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the period of limitation for the Transfer Pricing Officer to pass an order.Analysis:The batch of appeals before the Bombay High Court raised a crucial issue concerning the period of limitation available to the Transfer Pricing Officer to issue an order under Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court also considered the provisions of Section 153 of the Act in this context. The attention of the court was drawn to a previous judgment in the case of PayPal Payments Private Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., where similar issues were discussed. The court highlighted the significance of the provisions of Section 92CA and the applicability of the limitation period for the Transfer Pricing Officer, especially in relation to Section 153 of the Act.The court referred to earlier decisions in cases like Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd., which were relevant to the issues at hand. The court admitted the writ petition based on the considerations from these cases and granted interim reliefs. It was noted that the order in the PayPal Payments Private Ltd. case was under challenge before the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue.The court was informed that similar matters were pending before the Supreme Court, including cases from the Madras High Court and the Delhi High Court, which had taken a comparable view on the issues. The Tribunal in the present proceedings had followed the decision of the Madras High Court in M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, which was also under challenge before the Supreme Court through a special leave petition. Given the ongoing legal developments and the significance of the interpretations of Section 92CA and Section 153, the court decided to adjourn the proceedings sine die, allowing the parties to circulate the proceedings after the Supreme Court's orders.The court emphasized the need to await the Supreme Court's decisions before proceeding with the appeals for admission. It was noted that hearing the appeals without the Supreme Court's orders could lead to additional complexities, requiring the filing of cross-appeals and increasing the procedural burden. Therefore, the court deemed it appropriate to wait for the Supreme Court's directions before further action on the appeals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
