TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6/05/2014 Order u/s 143(3) r.w. Section 144C(5)/254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). 2. The Ground of appeal of the Assessee are as under:- "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") is bad in law and void ab-initio. 2. The Ld. AO/Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO")/Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") erred on facts and circumstances of the case in determining the arm's length adjustment to the Appellant's international transaction from Associated Enterprises ("AES"), thereby resulting in the enhancement of returned income of the Appellant by Rs. 35,499,029 3. That the order passed by the Ld. AO is i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, thereby leading to the Appellant's margin to be in line with the arm's length standard. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, The Ld. DRP/AO/TPO further erred on facts and in law in the assessment of the arm's length margin for the distribution segment of the Appellant in the following manner: 7.1 By selecting companies that do not meet the functions, assets and risks criteria as laid down under the Indian Regulations for a comparability analysis. 7.2 By rejecting the comparable companies adopted by the Appellant in the TP documentation for FY 2006-07 based on arbitrary and inconsistent reasons even though they are functionally comparable to the Appellant. 7.3 By not considering B A & ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Ld. AO/TPO/DRP erred in failing to appreciate that even a price which varies 5% in either direction of the arithmetic mean margins of the comparables may be considered as an arm's length price as per the proviso 2 section 92 C (2) of the Act. 11. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically for furnishing inaccurate particulars without recording any adequate satisfaction for such initiation 12. That the Ld. AO erred in facts and in law in charging and computing interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....segment has been added in the income of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the said order dated 26/05/2014, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal on the Grounds mentioned above. 4. The ld. Senior Counsel Sh. Sachit Jolly canvassing on the Ground No. 4 submitted that the impugned Final Assessment Order dated 26/05/2014 passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 144(5)/254 of the Act is barred by limitation as the final assessment order has been passed beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 153(2A) of the Act as stood in the relevant time, thus submitted that the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed on both the counts. The ld. Senior Counsel has also taken us through the various judicial precedents in support of his contentions. 5. Per ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... day of April, 1971, and any subsequent assessment year, an order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order under section 250 of section 254 or section 263 or section 264, setting aside or cancelling an assessment, may be made at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the order under section 250 or section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner of 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 Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner: Provided that where the order under section 250 or section 254 is received by the Principal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upon the original assessment being set aside or being cancelled in appeal. Clearly, the intention was not to restrict the applicability of sub-section (24) only to such cases where the 'entire' original assessment order is set aside. It was noted that, "Under the existing provisions of section 153 (3), such fresh assessments are not subject to any time limit." Indeed, Section 153, as it stood at that time, did not prescribe any time limits. Section 153 (3) (ii), in particular, did not require the order passed thereunder to be issued within any particular time limit. Further there is a distinction between an 'assessment' that is set aside and an assessment order' being set aside. When the assessment on an issue is set asi....