TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 796
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., which was directed against the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP", for short) dated 13 December 2016, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The DRP had made certain directions for the guidance of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 144C(5) of the Act, which are binding on the TPO who makes the TP adjustments in the assessment relating to international transactions under the Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, especially enacted for these purposes. 3. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition as premature finding that against the order of the learned TPO when passed in consequence of the directions given by the DRP, there is an appeal remedy available to the Assessee before the learned Tribunal and theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a as to what would be the profit in relation to purchases from AE. But it cannot be presumed that the profit percentage earned in relation to costs related to international transactions as well as non-international transaction was same. So it is always possible that the margin of profit on costs related to international transaction is not the same as profit margin on costs related to non-international transactions but ultimately overall profit margin is being shown." 17. After recording the above finding, the DRP has adopted a hypothesis with regard to an assessee having international transactions and how the arms length price needs to be determined. The case of the hypothetical assessee is dismissed in paragraphs 18.2, 18.3 and 18.4 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... This appears to be precisely the reason for terming the impugned order as a direction under Section 144C (5) of the Act and it ripens into an order on being given effect to by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, I am convinced that the decisions cited by Mr.N.Venkatraman, cannot be applied, at this juncture, as the factual position requires to be considered, which obviously cannot be done in a Writ Petition and therefore, the impugned direction issued by the DRP has to be given effect to and the third respondent has to pass an order of assessment, which can be questioned by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Tribunal. 19. For all the above reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with direction to the third respondent to give ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red with by this court in the present intra court appeal. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Revenue, Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan supported the impugned order and submitted that the mixed questions of facts and law can be agitated by the Assessee even before the Tribunal even though the order to be passed by the Assessing Officer is a mere consequence, in pursuance of the binding directions of the DRP, which comprises of three higher level officers of the Department, and that mechanism has been created in the Act to cut short the process of assessment and for applying the guidance of higher committee in the form of DRP by the TPO, lest the individual officers may take different individual views of the matter. He submitted that Wr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of domestic transactions and TP Adjustments can be made only for international transaction is unfounded, as the Department is very clear in its approach and TP Adjustments which can be made only to the international transactions covered by the definition given in Section 92B in the Chapter X, by the Revenue Authorities. Therefore she submitted that the Assessee may approach the learned Assessing Officer and if it is aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, they have a further remedy of appeal before the learned Tribunal and then further appeal on substantial questions of law before the High Court under Section 260A of the Act. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the present Writ A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Tribunal. Such a digression from the normal channel of the remedies provided in the Act in the said Chapter, need not be cut short by allowing the Assessee to invoke the Writ Jurisdiction in such cases. 9. In our considered opinion, this digression is self defeating and defeats the very purpose of quicker assessments sought to be achieved in the special law relating to international transactions envisaged in the Chapter X of the Income Tax Act provided for assessment of international transactions, so that an image of balanced approach by IT authorities can be projected on the international horizons. Many other developed countries provide for such quicker management of tax dispute resolution. 10. In view of the undertaking given by t....