TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be exercised against the Transfer Pricing Officer's order under section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the Transfer Pricing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for want of enquiry into the standby letter of credit arrangements.
Issue (i): Whether the revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be exercised against the Transfer Pricing Officer's order under section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: Explanation 1 to section 263, as applicable, clarifies that an order passed by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer is amenable to revision. Since the impugned revision order was passed after the amendment came into force, the Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise the Transfer Pricing Officer's order.
Conclusion: The invocation of section 263 against the Transfer Pricing Officer's order was valid and within jurisdiction.
Issue (ii): Whether the Transfer Pricing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for want of enquiry into the standby letter of credit arrangements.
Analysis: The standby letter of credit transactions were treated by the assessee itself as international transactions. The record showed that the Transfer Pricing Officer reproduced the details furnished by the assessee without examining the agreements, risk allocation, commission basis, recovery from the associated enterprise, or comparable arm's length benchmarking. Such omission amounted to absence of enquiry on a material issue. Explanation 2 to section 263 deems an order erroneous and prejudicial where the enquiry or verification that ought to have been made was not undertaken. The allowability of expenditure under section 37(1) did not displace the arm's length mandate under Chapter X.
Conclusion: The order under section 92CA(3) was rightly treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and the limited remand for fresh examination was justified.
Final Conclusion: The revisionary order was sustained, and the assessee's challenge failed because the lack of enquiry on the standby letter of credit issue warranted fresh transfer pricing verification.
Ratio Decidendi: An order passed without making the enquiry or verification that ought to have been made on a material international transaction is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and such an order of the Transfer Pricing Officer is revisable under section 263.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
