TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 668
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he following grounds of appeal: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at INR 62,93,34,720, in pursuance to the directions issued by the DRP, as against the returned income of INR 26,14,64,870. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated April 22, 2021 passed by the AO under section 143(3) read with sections 144C(13) and 1448 of the Act is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and thus, liable to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated November 1, 2019 passed by the TPO under section 92CA(3) of the Act is barred by limitation, bad in law, void ab initio and thus, liable to be quashed . Transfer Pricing ("TP") adjustment amounting to INR 16,73,97,818 pertaining to the international transaction of receipt of corporate support services: 4.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO have erred in making an upward TP adjustment of INR 16,73,97,818 in respect of the international transactions relating to receipt of corporate support services ("CSS"), alleging ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant towards management fees to its AE's - appreciating that the same were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. 6. Other grounds: 6.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in not allowing set-off of brought forward business loss from earlier assessment years. 6.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in granting short credit of taxes to the Appellant while computing the tax demand for the subject assessment year. 6.3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in levying interest under sections 234A and 234C of the Act. 6.4 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in incorrectly computing interest under section 234B of the Act. Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before, or at, the time of hearing of the appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee compa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions of section 153(4) of the Act, it expires on 01st November, 2019 and thus, the final assessment order passed by the AO is well within limitation prescribed under the law. Therefore, there is no merit in grounds of appeal filed by the assessee and same needs to be dismissed. 6. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. An undisputed fact that emerges from the records is that for the assessment year 2016-17, the TPO has passed order u/s. 92CA of the Act, on 01.11.2019. As per provisions of section 153(1) & 153(4) of the Act, the period of 60 days prior thereto would run till 01st November, 2019 and any order passed prior to that date would mean 31st October, 2019 or before. Since, the order was passed on 01.11.2019, the same would be barred by limitation, as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt Ltd & Ors. (WP Nos. 32688 of 2019 & Ors.) order dated 07.09.2020. A similar view has been taken by the coordinate bench of ITAT in the case of M/s. Verizon Data Services India Pvt Ltd (Supra), where the Tribunal by following the decision of Hon'ble Madras High C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the absence of the phrase 'no order shall be made' as used in Section 153. This, according to the revenue, leads to the conclusion that there is nothing sacrosanct about the period of 60 days which must be construed as flexible. 21. On the question of alternate remedy, I see no reason to relegate the petitioners to the Assessing Authority for completion of draft assessment that may be challenged before the DRP. Limitation, which is the issue raised in these writ petitions, is a mixed question of law and facts, but there are no disputes on factual aspects in the present case. The writ petitions are thus, held to be maintainable. 22. Limitation has been prescribed for each stage/process in an assessment, commencing with the filing of a return, transfer pricing proceedings under Section 92, filing of objections to draft assessment order in terms of Section 144C(2), passing of final order of assessment after expiry of the period for filing of objections in terms of Section 144C(4), issuance of directions by the DRP in terms of Section 144C(12) and passing of final assessment order after receipt of directions from the DRP in terms of Section 144C(13). An assessment involving ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he transfer pricing orders thus ought to have been passed on 31.10.2019 or any date prior thereto. Incidentally, the Board, in the Central Action Plan also indicates the date by which the Transfer Pricing orders are to be passed as 31.10.2019. The impugned orders are thus, held to be barred by limitation. It has been pointed out that the present assessee was also a party to this litigation. Since at that stage, the draft assessment order was under challenge by assessee before Ld. DRP, it was directed by Hon'ble Court that the petitioner would pursue the remedy opted by them. 6. The revenue's writ appeals against this decision came up for hearing before Division Bench of Hon'ble Court which was disposed-off on 31.03.2022 wherein the writ appeals were dismissed and the adjudication of Ld. Judge was confirmed. With respect to assessee, the revenue preferred similar WA No.2051 of 2021 which was disposed-off on 16.09.2021 wherein it was held that since the assessee chose to avail alternative provided under the Act by approaching DRP, it would be open for the assessee to canvass all legal and factual issues before Tribunal before which the appeal was pending at that stage. 7. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt year 2016-17 is allowed. ITA No:1010/Chny/2017 for AY 2012-13: 9. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant was a wholly owned subsidiary of Eaton Holdings 2 Limited and was engaged in the trading and manufacturing of power quality equipment such as UPS, direct current power systems, power component/distribution equipment and to provide maintenance service for those items. The appellant filed its return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 30.11.2012, declaring total income of Rs. 6,83,62,540/-. During the financial year 2012-13, the appellant had entered into international transactions with its Associate Enterprises (AEs). During the course of assessment proceedings, a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of ALP of international transactions of the assessee with its AE. The transfer pricing officer vide their order dated 29.01.2016, made transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs. 16,12,54,966/-. Thereafter, the AO passed draft assessment order on 29.03.2016 incorporating the transfer pricing adjustments proposed by the TPO and has also made corporate tax addition of Rs. 33,00,34,120/-. The assessee has filed an object....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td vs CIT (Supra), we admit additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. The relevant additional grounds filed by the assessee is reproduced as under: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C & 144B is barred by limitation and is bad in law, as the same has been passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 153(1) read with section 153(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act")." 13. The ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to additional ground filed by the assessee submitted that the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Office dated 17.02.2017 is beyond the time limit prescribed u/s. 153(1)(a) and proviso provided thereto and liable to be quashed. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Roca Bathroom Products (P) Ltd [2022] 445 ITR 537 (Mad). 14. The ld. DR, on the other hand submitted that the assessee has taken legal ground for the first time before the Tribunal and the ld. DRP did not had an occasion to examine the case of the assessee in light of provisions of ....