2016 (5) TMI 395

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....YD/2009 for the assessment year 2004-05 claiming following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in holding that two separate deductions under section 80HHC and 80IB are allowable to the assessee on the same profits and gains in contravention of section 80IB(13) read with section 80IA(9) of the Act? ii) Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in not allowing the amount of deduction allowed under section 80IB to be reduced from the business profits to compute deduction under section 8HHC on the resultant profits? Iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in law in not adj....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 80HHC of the Act at Rs.  77,75,288/- as against the assessee's claim of Rs.  85,40,817/- in its return of income. Further the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had entered into international transactions with its associated enterprises involving export of finished goods amounting to Rs.  9,22,35,092/- and other international transactions. The Assessing Officer made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(1) of the Act to determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of these international transactions. On the basis of TPO's order, total addition of Rs.  2,66,59,178/- was made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee on account of transfer pricing adjustm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ure A.2 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Even the appeal was filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) at Hyderabad. Further appeal by the assessee and cross appeal by the revenue were filed before the Tribunal at Hyderabad. Since the initial process of assessment was started at Hyderabad and the final assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer at Hyderabad, this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. In The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. M/s Motorola India Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 156, where the assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer at Bangalore, the Revenue in that case, had sought to justify the filing of the appeal in this Court on the ground that the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lication under sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 256 of the Act vested in the High Court of Bombay and not of Delhi. We are in respectful agreement with the aforementioned reasoning of the Delhi High Court. Accordingly, we hold that the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the assessee-respondent is sustainable. xxxx xxxx xxxx A conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions makes it evident that the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is empowered to transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him to any other Assessing Officer. It also deals with the procedure when the case is transferred from one Assessing Officer subordinate to a Director General or Chief Commissioner or....