TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 474
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribution of dental products, cosmetics, toiletries, leather products. ii. It filed its return of income on 29th January, 2011, declaring total income of Rs.339,35,33,267/-, as per normal computation and the book profit under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at Rs.518,37,38,685/-. The return of the income was picked up for scrutiny. iii. As the assessee has entered into international transactions, on reference to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing 2(3), Mumbai (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) an order was passed under Section 92CA (3) of the Act, on 30th January, 2015, proposing an adjustment of Rs.152,77,55,935/- to the Arm's Length Price of the international transaction. iv. This adjustment was challenged by filing an objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel -1, Mumbai (learned DRP), wherein certain directions were given and according to that the total adjustment was made on account of transfer pricing issues of Rs.23,48,70,000/-. v. The learned Assessing Officer further made disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rule of Rs.25,21,108/-. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IC of the Act amounting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent order and the final assessment order are bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed." 06. We find that the ground raised by the assessee is jurisdictional, which can be raised by assessee at any time during the year, does not require any further investigation of facts, hence, we admit the same. 07. Adverting to the additional ground of appeal, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that i. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer has passed an order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act on 30 January 2015. ii. The same order is beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 92CA (3A) read with section 153 of the Act. iii. As the order of the learned Transfer Pricing Officer is passed beyond the prescribed time limit, subsequent assessment order dated 15th February, 2016, is also barred by limitation for the reason that if the transfer pricing orders are found to be beyond prescribed time, the assessee is not an 'eligible assessee' in terms of section 144C (15) (b) of the Act. iv. Therefore, even the corporate additions made in assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer are not sustainable. v. For this proposition, reliance placed upon ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly following the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Pfizer Healthcare India (P.) Ltd. [ts-271-XC-2022 (mad)] dated 13 April 2022, we hold that the order passed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer under Section 92CA (3) of the Act is passed beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, such order of Transfer Pricing Officer is not sustainable. Mere pendency of writ petition before the honourable Supreme Court does not help the case of the revenue. In ITA number 2381/del/2014 for assessment year 2009 - 10 dated 11/3/2021 was relied upon by the learned departmental representative citing paragraph number 27 holding that the assessment order under section 143 (3) passed by the AO is in time. In that, decision the issue whether the assessee remains an eligible assessee or not was not at all considered when the order of the ld TPO is barred by limitation. Therefore, it does not help the case of the revenue. Further, the order of ld TPO should have been passed 60 days prior to the date on which the time limit for passing the order is available, thus the argument of the assessee about 60 days available to the ld AO for passing the order is unfounded. 011. Now, the issue that a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rior to the date on which the limitation expires falls on 30/3/2016. The 60-day period counting the one day in the month of January 29 days of February being leap year and 31 days of March 2016, expires on 31/1/2016. Therefore, the outer time limit for passing the order of the learned transfer-pricing officer is up to 30/1/2016. In this case, the order of the learned transfer-pricing officer is passed on 31/1/2016. Therefore, it is barred by limitation as per the decision of the honourable madras High Court in case of Pfizer healthcare India private limited 433 ITR 28. Accordingly, the order of the learned transfer-pricing officer is passed beyond the limitation prescribed under the act and hence is liable to be quashed. If, the transfer pricing assessment is quashed, the natural corollary would be that assessee would not be an eligible assessee prescribed under section 144C (15) (b) of the act. Thus, the time limit for passing of the order cannot be further extended by one year because of reference to the learned transfer-pricing officer. Thus, even the regular assessment order passed under section 143 (3) read with section 144C of the act also become is barred by limitation and h....