TaxTMI Login
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%
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether certain companies selected as comparables were liable to be excluded on the ground of functional dissimilarity and failure to satisfy the applied filters; (ii) Whether the final assessment order was time-barred under section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (i): Whether certain companies selected as comparables were liable to be excluded on the ground of functional dissimilarity and failure to satisfy the applied filters.
Analysis: The transfer pricing adjustment was examined in the context of the assessee's back-office support services under the transactional net margin method. The challenged comparables were found either to be engaged in highly specialised research and development or in activities materially different from the assessee's functions. Two other comparables were also found to have failed the filters applied in the transfer pricing analysis, including the related party transactions filter and the employee cost or service income filters. Comparable selection had to reflect functional similarity and compliance with the filters used in benchmarking.
Conclusion: The impugned comparables were directed to be excluded, and the transfer pricing grounds were allowed in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the final assessment order was time-barred under section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel triggered the statutory timeline for completion of the final assessment. The Assessing Officer was required to pass the order within one month from the end of the month in which the directions were received. The final order was passed beyond that period. The statutory timeline was treated as mandatory, and an order passed in breach of that limitation could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The final assessment order was held to be barred by limitation and was quashed in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment could not be sustained on the comparability objections, and the assessment itself failed on the independent ground of limitation, resulting in complete relief to the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: In transfer pricing matters, comparables must be functionally similar and satisfy the applied filters, and an assessment order under section 144C(13) must be completed within the prescribed statutory time limit, failing which it is invalid.
TaxTMI 
