Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2024 (12) TMI 973 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        DRP cannot delegate transfer pricing adjustment decisions to AO under section 144C(8) The ITAT Lucknow held that the DRP's direction permitting the AO to decide transfer pricing adjustments on an either-or basis was impermissible under ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            DRP cannot delegate transfer pricing adjustment decisions to AO under section 144C(8)

                            The ITAT Lucknow held that the DRP's direction permitting the AO to decide transfer pricing adjustments on an either-or basis was impermissible under statute. The DRP failed to conclusively adjudicate the ALP determination issue and improperly delegated decision-making to the AO instead of disposing objections strictly under section 144C(8). Following the Karnataka HC precedent in GE India Technologies case, the tribunal ruled that DRP cannot look beyond TPO's proposed variations. The impugned DRP direction and consequential assessment orders were set aside, with matters restored to DRP for fresh consideration with clear directions on confirming, reducing, enhancing, or deleting TPO adjustments.




                            Issues Involved:

                            1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for the cost of steam transferred between units.
                            2. Validity of the assessment order concerning the limitation period.
                            3. Allowance of credit for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115 JAA.
                            4. Procedural irregularities in the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP):

                            The primary issue revolves around the determination of the ALP for steam transferred from the power co-generation unit to the sugar unit. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) initially determined the ALP as NIL, leading to an upward adjustment. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) found the TPO's rejection of the Cost-Plus Method (CPM) used by the assessee unjustified and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to determine the ALP based on a certificate from a chartered engineer or cost accountant, or alternatively, using the CPM method considering capacity utilization and indirect cost apportionment. The Tribunal found the DRP's directions improper as they effectively delegated decision-making back to the AO, violating Section 144C(8) of the Income Tax Act, which prohibits the DRP from remanding issues to the AO for further enquiry. The Tribunal set aside these directions and remanded the matter back to the DRP for a conclusive decision.

                            2. Validity of the Assessment Order:

                            The assessee initially raised an issue regarding the assessment order being barred by limitation under Section 144C(13), arguing it was not signed, uploaded, or dispatched within the prescribed period. However, this ground was withdrawn by the assessee and was not pressed for adjudication.

                            3. Allowance of Credit for MAT:

                            The assessee contended that the AO erred in not allowing the credit for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115 JAA. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue in detail as the primary focus was on the procedural irregularities with the DRP's directions.

                            4. Procedural Irregularities in DRP's Directions:

                            The Tribunal emphasized that the DRP, being a quasi-judicial authority, must provide clear and conclusive directions without delegating its authority back to the AO. The DRP's directions to the AO to determine the ALP on an 'either-or' basis were found to be in violation of the statutory framework, specifically Section 144C(8), which mandates that the DRP should conclusively settle disputes without remanding them for further enquiry. The Tribunal highlighted the principle delegatus non potest delegare, meaning a delegate cannot further delegate its powers unless expressly authorized. The Tribunal set aside the DRP's directions and the consequential assessment orders, remanding the matters back to the DRP for a fresh decision.

                            Conclusion:

                            The Tribunal concluded that the DRP's directions were procedurally flawed, necessitating a remand for a proper adjudication. The assessment orders based on the DRP's improper directions were deemed irregular. The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and directed the DRP to provide clear directions within the legal framework. The stay applications were also allowed, ceasing any recovery proceedings until the final assessment orders are passed following the DRP's fresh directions.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found