2023 (11) TMI 1276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of the AO. Ld. DR submitted that the AO had made adjustment as per the Order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act passed by the Transfer Pricing officer with reference to Specified Domestic Transactions as it existed at that time. The subsequent amendment is not retrospective and it is applicable from 2017. Therefore, Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition. Submission of Ld.AR : 3. Ld. Authorised Representative (ld.AR) submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has deleted the Adjustments made by the AO with reference to Specific Domestic transactions following Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore's Decision in the case of Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT ITA(TP) No. 2213/Bang/201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Karnataka High Court has held as under : Quote, "3. It is the contention of learned Advocates appearing for revenue that tribunal was not justified in arriving at a conclusion that Clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act, which had been omitted w.e.f. 01.04.2017 would be applicable retrospectively by presuming the retrospectivity, particularly when the statue itself explicitly stated it to be prospective in nature. As such they have sought for formulating substantial questions of law and have sought for answering the same in favour of revenue and against the assessee. ................... 6. In fact, Co-ordinate Bench under similar circumstances had examined the effect of omission of sub-section (9) to Section 10B ....