TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see company filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 on 30/11/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 13,10,200/- as per normal computation of income and book profit u/s 115JB computed at Rs. 3,98,36,847/-. The return was picked up for scrutiny. Subsequently, the assessee revised return of income on 31/03/2015 for change in carry forwarding of MAT credit. 3) As the assessee engaged in the business of distribution of Asus Group products in India whereby it purchases Notebooks and Tablets from its associated enterprises and sales the product locally, it entered into several international transaction. Therefore, the reference u/s 92CA of the Act was made to the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, [Transfer Pricing Officer-1(1), Mumba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....All the relevant facts such as the various dates of passing of the various orders are available on record. Therefore, there is no need to investigate further facts. It was further stated that the grounds of appeal are jurisdictional, goes to rout of the matter and hence, same may be admitted. 10) The Ld. Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) strongly opposed the ground raised by the assessee submitted that these grounds were not raised before the Lower Authorities. 11) We have carefully considered the rival contentions and find that the application for admission of additional ground deserves to be admitted. These grounds are jurisdictional, goes to the root of the matter and do not require any further investigation of facts and, theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... High Court in case of M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, in Writ Appeal No.1139/2021 along with the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai in case of Altos India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No.1795/Mum/2017 as well as M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.1492/Mum/2015. Therefore, the Ld. AR vehemently stated that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee and as the final assessment order is barred by limitation, it deserves to be quashed. 13) The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently supported the order of the Ld. AO and TPO and submitted that same has not barred by limitation but has passed within prescribed limit u/s 153 of the Act. 14) We have carefully considered the rival conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... High Court in 444 ITR 636 in DCIT Vs. Saint Gobain India Pvt. Ltd quash the T P order . 15) As the order of the Ld. TPO is barred by limitation, there is no variation to the income of the assessee pursuance to the reference made the Ld. TPO. Accordingly, assessee does not qualify to be an eligible assessee u/s 144C(15)(b). Thus, the moment the order of the TPO is quashed the assessee ceases to be an 'eligible assessee'. Therefore, in that circumstances the time limit for completion of the assessment reverts back to 21months. However, in this case the final assessment order is passed on 26th October, 2017, same is also time barred. Accordingly, the final assessment order is also quashed. We draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble D....