AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee are preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation - 2, New Delhi dated 30.03.2021 pertaining to assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07, 2008-09 to 2010-11, 2013-14 and 2014-15 framed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' for short]. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to same assessee and were heard together involving identical issue, these are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act since the assessment order framed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act was neither erroneous n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India. 7. Thereafter, the ld. CIT referred to the following directions on this issue by the DRP: "Thus, basis above the income of the PE can be reasonably ascertained by imputing the costs in terms of salary paid to the employees of the AE and applying a reasonable markup on such costs to determine the income of the PE in Indian jurisdiction. The factual history of the matter is in the assessment records with the AO. The panel accepts the same in view of the facts of the case. The action of the TPO/AO is upheld., subject to charge on the wages/remuneration paid to the seconded employees at the cost-plus margin of 20% on 'salary attributed to India operations' (being a reasonable attribution basis the work performed for the AE-th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the Assessing Officer has wrongly interpreted the directions of the DRP's order of Assessment Year 2007-08 to pass final order and accordingly, came to the conclusion that the assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2006-07, 2008-09 to 2010-11 and 2013-14 and 2014-15 are not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and set aside all the assessment orders on the issue of attribution of income to Indian operation. 11. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused. Judicial decisions relied upon were duly considered. 12. Before proceeding further, it would be necessary to understand the provisions of section 144C of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ves out a separate class of assesses i.e. 'eligible assessee' i.e. any person in whose case the variation arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of Section 92CA. For this class of assessees, it prescribes a collegium of three commissioners, once objections are preferred. Dispute Resolution Panel's powers are co-terminous with the CIT(A), including the power to confirm, reduce or enhance the variation proposed and to consider the issues not agitated by the Assessee in the objections. In fact, under section 144C, the Dispute Resolution Panel can issue directions as it thinks fit for the guidance of the Assessing Officer to enable him to complete the assessment and the Disp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(13) of the Act. Therefore, in our humble opinion, the impugned assessment orders are non-est. We are of the further opinion that once the assessment orders have been held to be non-est, the ld. CIT could not have assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act over a non assessment order which can never be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 17. The contention of the ld. DR that the Assessing Officer has followed the directions of the DRP but somehow over looked the directions issued. We are of the considered view that there is no choice given to the Assessing Officer to follow one part of the directions of the DRP and not to follow the other part. 18. Now the query arises as to whether the assessee can challenge the va....