TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 24.02.2021 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax, (Dispute Resolution Panel-1), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(DRP)] qua the assessment year 2016-17 on the grounds inter alia that :- "General 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the learned Assessing Officer (AO) under the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) ered in making an adjustment of Rs. 14,163,877 (comprising of support services availed of INR 6,751,261 and allocation of costs of INR 7,412,616) under Chapter X of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) under other provisions of the Act Legal 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provided under section 92C(1) of the Act and thus their orders on this issue are bad." 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : the assessee is into the business of providing qualitative market research and other related services across all industry sectors, which referred to understanding and analyzing the consumer observations with respect to a particular product by application of knowledge from fields such as sociology, psychology etc. 3. During the year under consideration the assessee entered into international transaction with Associate Enterprises (AEs). The Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO) after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee proposed adjustment on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch was also decided by the Ld. DRP 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 and computation of 60 days available with the TPO to pass the TP order, necessary to decide the issue in controversy in a tabulated form, which is as under: Computation of 60 days for TP Order Particulars Ground 2: Validity of Order passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act Calculation of due date for passing transfer pricing order under section 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 01.11.2019 passed by the Ld. TPO is barred by limitation as contended by the Ld. AR for the assessee, we would advert to the provisions contained under section 92CA(3) read with section 153 of the Act. 12. Undisputedly, sub-section (3A) to section 92CA has been inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2007 providing time limit for the Transfer Pricing Officer to pass the order i.e. within a period of 60 days prior to the date of completion of assessment as per section 153. So, under section 92CA (3A) read with section 153, Ld. TPO was required to pass the order within the period of 60 days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153 expires i.e. 21 months. 13. Undisputedly the TP order was passed on 01.11.2019 where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tation referred to Section 153 expires'. Excluding 31.12.2019, the period of 60 days would expire on 01.11.2019 and the 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 dale 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." 15. Identical issue has been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of ECL Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.899/M/2018 order dated 22.09.2021 and in case of Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No.2381/Del/2014 order dated 11.03.2021 in favour of the assessee by following M/s. Pfiz....