TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly stated the assessee is engaged in the business of provision of information technology services (IT), provision of IT enabled service (ITES) and provision of business support services (BSS) precisely to state that it is engaged in the business of providing software development services to its associated enterprises (AEs) in its IT segment by both onsite and offshore software process acting as system integrated and total solution provider and providing software development services in the area like health care, telecommunication, manufacturing, utilities public sector and the government sectors. The assessee company also offers solutions and services along with the Consult - Ddesign - Build - Operate and Maintain service chain. The assessee had filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. 138,58,33,060/- and had filed a revised return of income dated 09.12.2016 and 26.03.2018, with no change in the total income. The assessee's case was then selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon the assessee. 4. The ld. Assessing Officer ('ld.A.O.' for short) during the assessment proceeding made a reference to the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment order is also barred by limitation as per section 144C and 153 of the Act respectively. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Pfizer Healthcare India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Jt. CIT [2021] 124 taxmann.com 536 (Madras) and also the decision of Dy. CIT vs. Saint Gobain India (P) Ltd. [2022] 137 taxmann.com 215 (Madras) and the tribunal's decision in assessee's own for A.Y. 2015- 16 whereon identical facts it was held that the ld. TPO's order passed beyond the time limit prescribed under the relevant provision is barred by limitation and the same is held to be null and void. 8. The ld. Departmental Representation (ld. DR for short), on the other hand, controverted the said contention and stated that the time limit specified in the provision is not mandatory and only discretion and relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 9. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The moot question here to be decided is the validity of the ld. TPO's order and the subsequent draft assessment order and the final assessment order passed in pursuance of the impugned order. It is relevant to tabulate the time line for p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lation to the international transaction or specified domestic transaction in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 92C and send a copy of his order to the Assessing Officer and to the assessee. (3A) Where a reference was made under sub-section (1) before the 1st day of June, 2007 but the order under sub-section (3) has not been made by the Transfer Pricing Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub-section (1) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153, or as the case may be, in section 153B for making the order of assessment or reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires: Provided that in the circumstances referred to in clause (ii) or clause (x) of Explanation 1 to section 153, if the period of limitation available to the Transfer Pricing Officer for making an order is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to have been extended accordingly. 11. The above said provision has catego....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner: Provided that where the order under section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner on or after the 1st day of April, 2019, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words "nine months", the words "twelve months" had been substituted. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), where a reference under sub-section (1) of section 92CA is made during the course of the proceeding for the assessment or reassessment, the period available for completion of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, under the said sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be extended by twelve months. 12. On perusal of the above provision, it is evident that the ld. TPO ought to have passed the order under sub section 3A of ....