TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 857
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Year ('A.Y.' for short) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has challenged the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the impugned order dated 30.12.2022 passed by Assessment Unit, Income tax department (learned A.O.) under section 143(3) read with section 260 and section 144B of the Act, is barred by limitation, since impugned order is passed /issued beyond the maximum time limit prescribed under section 144C(13) of the act. Hence the assessment order is liable to be quashed/annulled as barred by limitation. 2. Without prejudice to ground 1, on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Deputy Commissioner of Income tax (Transfer Pricing)-3(1)(1) ('Learned TPO')....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant submits that the following companies should be considered as comparable in determining the arm's length price of the international transactions - i. Goldmine Advertising Limited ii. MCI Mangement India Private Limited iii. Killick Agencies & Marketing Limited iv. Pressman Advertising Limited v. Kestone Integrated Marketing Servics Private Limited vi. Marketing Communications & Advertising Limited vii. I Media Corp Limited 6. Without prejudice to ground 1, 4 and 5, on facts and circumstances ofteh case and in law, the learned TPO erred in arbitrarily selecting three companies with high margin to benchmark the international transaction of MSS merely on the premise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmined the total loss at Rs. 6,06,41,197/-, pursuant to the TPO order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act dated 29.01.2021 where the TPO proposed the transfer pricing adjustment. The draft assessment order u/s. 144C of the Act dated 22.04.2021 was passed for which the assessee had filed objection against the upward adjustment proposed in the draft assessment order before the Hon'ble DRP on 29.05.2021. The ld.DRP disposed of the objection raised by the assessee and the final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C and 144B of the Act was passed. The assessee challenged the assessment order passed by the A.O. by a writ petition before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on the ground that the assessment order was passed before the expiry of the time perio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ld. A.O. to pass the assessment order within the limitation period prescribed under the provisions of the Act, the impugned assessment order was passed only on 30.12.2022 which is beyond the prescribed limitation period. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Adobe Systems India P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (in ITA No. 928/Del/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 vide order dated 16.06.2022). 5. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short), on the other hand, controverted the said facts and stated that as the ld. TPO vide notice dated 31.01.2022 had sought for certain details from the assessee which was furnished vide assessee's submission dated 02.02.2022 and for that reason the limitation period will not fall on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....time period granted for filing objection before the Hon'ble DRP and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 29.10.2021 quashed the impugned assessment order on the said ground. Subsequent to this event, the Hon'ble DRP passed its direction dated 28.01.2022 and the same was received by the assessee on 28.01.2022. The assessee vide its submission dated 30.03.2022 had sought for the details from the ld. A.O. as to whether or not the assessment order has been passed. It is observed that the final assessment order was then passed by the ld. A.O. on 30.12.2022 which according to the provision of section 144C(13) ought to have been passed on or before 28.02.2022, i.e., within one month from the end of the month in which DRP directions is recei....