TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Gujarat under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 92C(4) & 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to "the Act") for A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The assessee company engaged in the business of manufacturing of construction equipments and components filed its return of income on 29.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs. 6,14,73,820/-. Subsequently, the case was selected through CASS for complete scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 28.08.2015 was issued. 3. During the F.Y. 2013-14 pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15 the assessee has acquired the assets and liabilities of the asphalt plant business of GAIL, its domestic AE upon making consideration of Rs. 228,75,37,036/- and acquired the assets and liabilities of sensor paver ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrangement. Since this is a purchase of undertaking it is not covered under the scope of SDT specified under Section 92BA(i) r.w.s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the transfer pricing provisions itself do not apply. The Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee further contended before us that Section 92BA(i) was deleted from the statute by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017, and once deleted it has lost its existence and further that it has to be considered as a law never been existed. In that view of the matter the decision taken by the Ld. AO/TPO in treating the purchase of those two business undertaking under a slump sale arrangement as specified domestic transaction under Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....17. In fact, it is to be considered as to whether Clause (i) of Section 92BA of the Act which has been omitted w.e.f. 01.04.2017 would be applicable retrospectively. It is a settled principle of law that when a particular provision is repealed from the statue the normal effect would be to obliterate it from the statute book as completely as if it had never been passed and the statute must be considered as a law that never existed. Further that in a case where a particular provision in a statute is unconditionally omitted and in its place another provision dealing with the same contingency is introduced without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings then it can be reasonably inferred that the intention of the legislature is that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om 01.07.2017 from the Statute the resultant effect is that it had never been passed and to be considered as a law never been existed. Hence, decision taken by the Assessing Officer under the effect of Section 92BI and reference made to the order of Transfer Pricing Officer-TCP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law." 10. We have further considered the following various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Benches as relied upon by the Ld. AR: (i) ITAT Cuttack Bench in the matter of M/s. SKM- UMSL JV vs. ITO in ITA No. 229/CTK/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 observed as follows: "...In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the transactions related to the assessee falls under the clause(i) at Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed." (iii) ITAT Kolkata Bench in the matter of M/s. Raipur Steel Casting India (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT-5 in ITA No. 895/Kol/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 on the identical issue observed the following: "...We note that ld. PCIT issued the above show cause notice u/s. 263 in respect of specified domestic transactions referred to in clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act which was omitted with effect from 01.04.2017, and effect of such "omission" of clause (i) of section 92BA means that this provision never existed in the statute book, since clause (i) of section 92BA never existed in the statute book therefore, ld. PCIT cannot exercise his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act in respec....