Royalty transfer pricing ALP review: s.263 revision quashed where no s.92CA(3) order existed and TPO time-barred

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Revisional jurisdiction under s.263 was invoked on the premise that the reassessment was erroneous and prejudicial because the AO allegedly failed to consider an order under s.92CA(3) and verify the arm's length price of royalty. Since no s.92CA(3) order was ever passed, the alleged error was legally untenable, and the AO, having made a reference, could not himself substitute the TPO's specialized determination, consistent with s.92CA(4) ("if any"). Further, s.263 could not be used to compel a fresh ALP determination after the TPO's power stood exhausted by limitation under s.92CA(3A). The revision was quashed and the assessee's appeal allowed - ITAT....