TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 293
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year 2020-21. 2. Brief facts of case are that the assessee company, Jones Lang Lasalle Property Consultants (India) Private Limited, is a related entity to JJL Group which is a financial and professional services firm specializing in commercial real estate services and investment management. The assessee company is engaged in providing real estate consultancy, brokerage, design and construction of office interiors and project management services in India. The assessee company filed its return of income for AY 2020-21 on 08.01.2021and the same was selected for scrutiny under CASS to examine the following issues: 1. High Value International Transactions 2. Difference in ICDS adjustment reported in Form 3CD and ITR 3. Reduction in Profit due to ICDS application 4. Deemed income u/s 41 on account of written off debts 5. Loss/gain from currency fluctuations 6. Claim of large refund 7. Deduction under Chapter VI-A 8. Default in TDS 9. Foreign Outward Remittance Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 29.06.2021. Later on the case was referred to the NFAC u/s 144B of the Act. The 'International ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... directions issued by Ld. DRP under section 144C(5) have been issued beyond time limit prescribed under section 144C(12). 5. Without prejudice to the above, assessment proceedings which culminated in the Impugned Order are illegal and void in as much as the same are in breach of section 153 of the Act. 6. Without prejudice to above, directions issued by Ld. DRP are in contravention of section 144C(8) and therefore invalid. Grounds relating to transfer pricing issues 7. Ld. AO/TPO/DRP have erred in making an addition of 369,62,68,083/- to total income of Appellant on account of adjustment to arm's length price ("ALP") for international transactions entered by Appellant with its Associated Enterprises. 8. Ld. ΑΟ/ΤPO/DRP have erred, in law and in facts: 8.1 Claiming that reference is made to Ld. TPO but not providing details/ copy of such reference to enable one to ascertain whether reference is as per law. 8.2 in not accepting economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the Act, conducting a fresh economic analysis for determination of ALP and holding that Appellant's impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpanies. 9. Ld. AO/TPO/ DRP erred in including deemed international transactions for determination of the quantum of adjustment for property management, advisory and brokerage segment, without appreciating that these transactions are quadrangular in nature and are only reported out of abundant caution. Corporate Tax Grounds 10. Ld. AO has erred in passing a non-speaking order under section 143(3) of the Act wherein no details or findings or reference is mentioned basis which addition is made relying on the intimation issued by CPC under section 143(1) of the Act. 11. Ld. AO has erred in making addition basis intimation issued by CPC without adjudicating disputed additions and erred in taking contradictory stand by adopting income u/s 143 (1) as starting point for purpose of computation of income pursuant to order under section 143(3). 12. Ld. AO erred in not issuing show-cause notice prior to making addition based on the adjustments made to the returned income in the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act which is against the principles of natural justice. 13. Ld. AO has erred in making addition amounting to Rs. 6,34,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 of order dated 17.10.2023 in the case of Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, New Delhi at page 125 to 141. The relevant observation is as under: "12. On a cohesive reading of provision of section 130 and 144B of the Act read together with section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, we hold that the moment document is uploaded by the originator (which in the present case ld DRP) on 07.04.2022 in ITBA portal that dispatch from the side of the ld DRP is complete and since the entire documents are uploaded through electronic mode, the same happens seamlessly and accordingly, the receipt of the said document also becomes instantaneously. Hence, the date of receipt of DRP direction also happened on 07.04.2022 itself and the due date in terms of section 144C(13) would start reckoning from that date. Merely, because the NeAC had retained the document receipt from ld DRP in the form of DRP directions for few months in its kitty and the later transfer the same to the assessment unit on 02.05.2022, the due date in terms of section 144C(13) of the Act for framing the final assessment order by the ld AO does not get automatically extended. Hence, we have no hesi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidering the fact that the Faceless Assessment Scheme has been introduced recently and therefore, the Revenue ought to have been given some leverage to correct themselves and take corrective measures and therefore the High Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after following the due procedure, as required under the law, namely, more particularly, under Section 144B of the Act." 10. From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that appellant/assessee pressed ground of appeal no.3 challenging final assessment order dated 30.07.2024 under Section 143(3) read with section 14C(13) read with section 144B is time barred having been passed beyond time limit under Section 14C(13) of the Act for completion of assessment. 11. Comparative table of vital events and dates in cases of Haier Appliances (I) Pvt. Ltd., Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd., Nokom India (P) Ltd. and Honda T & D (India)m Pvt. Ltd. and the directions of Ld. DRP issued directions under Section 144(c)(5) of the Act is as under: Sr. No. Events Haier Appliances (I) Pvt. Ltd. Microsoft Cor....