TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1460
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in making Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments of Rs. 20,07,54,216 to the total income of the Appellant. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid TP adjustments be deleted. . Transfer Pricing order passed by the Learned TPO dated 01 November 2019 is barred by limitation a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 01 November 2019 passed by the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Transfer Pricing 2(i)(i) under section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') is beyond the time limit prescribed under section 92CA(3A) r.w.s 153 of the Act, thus making the TP order illegal, bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed. b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the TP order being illegal and void on account of being barred by limitation in terms of section 92CA(sA) r.w.s 153 of the Act, the action of the AO in passing the draft assessment order dated 05 December 2019 by invoking section 1440 of the Act is without jurisdiction and thus all proceedings consequent to the draft assessment order are also illegal and bad in law and liable to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmits and prays that the aforesaid adjustment be deleted. 5. Facilitation support services (Marketing support services / MSS) segment - INR 54,95,723 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO/DRP/TPO erred in making an adjustment for provision of MSS by: a) Disregarding the TP Study maintained by the Appellant in good faith and with due diligence; b) Rejecting the search process carried out by the Appellant in the TP Study; c) Not following a structured search process and thus resorting to cherry picking of comparable companies; d) Including certain companies which were not functionally comparable; and e) Excluding certain companies which were functionally comparable The Appellant therefore submits and prays that the aforesaid adjustment be deleted. All of the above Grounds of Appeal are independent of and without prejudice to each other. Furthermore, the Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, delete, modify or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s case under section 92CA of the Act is passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 92CA(3A) read with section 153 of the Act rendering the TP order illegal, null and void ab-initio and liable to be quashed". So we would first decide this legal issue which was also decided by the Ld. DRP and was decided against the assessee. 8. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee challenging the impugned order passed by the Ld. TPO contended that the order passed by the Ld. TPO is beyond the time limit prescribed under section 92CA(3A) read with section 153 of the Act and consequent assessment order passed by the AO is also not sustainable and brought on record the factual position necessary to decide the issue in controversy in a tabulated form which is as under: Sr. No. Particulars Relevant Dates Pfizer Healthcare India Private Limited (Madras High Court) Appellant A Assessment Year 2016-17 2016-17 B Period of limitation for making an order of assessment as per Section 153 of the Act 21 months from the end of the Assessment Year 21 months from the end of Assessment Year C Extension of period of limitation in case reference is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tation referred to in section 153 expires i.e. 21 months. 13. Undisputedly the assessment order was passed on 01.11.2019 whereas the Ld. TPO was required to pass the order within 60 days prior to the date of which period of limitation referred to in section 153 of the Act expires. 14. Now the question arises as to how the period of 60 days prior to the date of transfer pricing order i.e. 01.11.2019 is to be computed. Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while dealing with the issue held that for computing the period of 60 days, the last date as per section 153 should be excluded. Operative part of the judgment is extracted for ready perusal as under :- "30. Now, coming to the question of how the 60 day period is to be computed, the critical question would be whether the period of 60 days would be computed including the 31st of December or excluding it. Section 153 states that no order of assessment shall be made at any time after time expiry of 21 months from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. The submission of the revenue is to the effect that limitation expires only on 12 am of....