TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion services. It offered a complete range of testing services all under one roof for endless list of products and materials in the fields of chemical biological, mechanical, non-destructive, electrical and electronics. It is submitted that during AY 2021-22, the assessee had entered into the following international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs) Sr. No. International Transactions Quantum of transaction (Rs.) Margin Most Appropriate Method use for bench Marking 1 Provision of testing Services 81,33,451 -3.67% TNMM using OP/OC As as PLI 2 Receipt of testing services 6,04,292 3 Receipt of international support services fee 1,01,26,294 7% 4 Payment of Royalty 39,42,000 6% CUP Assessee's Transfer Pricing Study (TPS) benchmarked the above international transactions. TPS concluded that above international transactions were at arm's length. 4. It is submitted that vide order dated 31.10.2023 under section 92CA, Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) proposed a cumulative upward adjustment of Rs. 1,12.97,371/- to arm's length price of above transaction resulting in increase of returned income of Assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... final assessment order. Transfer pricing officer had later passed his order giving effect to DRP's directions, which were incorporated by assessing officer by passing a rectified order u/s. 154 of the Act. 9. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal at para 11 of its order held that since the final assessment order passed was not in conformity with the directions of DRP, same was in violation of mandatory process codified under the Act. Therefore, final assessment order was held to be null and void. Hon'ble Tribunal further held that subsequent rectification would have no bearing on invalidity of final assessment order, otherwise the assessment becomes time barred, the Assessing Officer has followed the statutory provisions of Section 143(3) thereby passing assessment order. But as per the binding section 144C(10) of the Act, the mandatory provision was not followed by the Assessing Officer, thereby it is binding on the Assessing Officer to follow the directions of the DRP. Therefore, the assessment becomes null and void. As regards rectification, there is no mistake committed on part of Assessing Officer, in fact Assessing Officer was very well aware that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t /Deputy /Assistant commissioner of Income Tax, [2022] 136 taxmann.com 260(Delhi). 2. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of SRF Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [2021] 129 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi). 3. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Anand NVH Products (P.) Ltd. vs. National e- Assessment Centre Delhi. [2021] 130 taxmnan.com 257(Delhi) 4. The Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Hitachi Astemo Haryana (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2024] 158 taxmnna.com 25 (Delhi-Trib.) 5. The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi's order dated 19.09.2024 in the case of Honda R & D India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Circle 11(1) New Delhi ITA No.3756/Del/2015 for A.Y. 2010- 11 6. The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi's recent order dated 19.09.2024 in the case of Jubilant Foodworks Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle 5 (1)(1) Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida 14. In reply the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the course of oral hearing, it was the submission of Ld. DR that non-compliance with DRP directions in Impugned Order is merely a procedural defect and the appropriate course of action would be to remand the case to the file of AO/TPO for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., [2021] 129 taxmann.com 174 (Del.) and Anand NVH Products Ltd. vs NE Assessment Centre, Delhi, WP(C) 7936/2021. Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that Jubilant Foodworks (supra) does not lay down the correct law. Firstly, it fails to distinguish any of the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee counsel, as mentioned in para 7 of said order. Further, judgments in the case of SRF (supra) and Anand NVH (supra) have been rendered in relation to a distinctly different issue/ facts. The issue before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in both of these cases as well as in Fiberhome India (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Centre, (2022) 444 ITR 237 (Delhi) relied upon by Ld. DR, was about passage of final assessment order while the objections of assessee were pending before DRP. Without overly emphasizing on the fact that the above judgments were rendered in context of circumstances which existed during COVID-19 pandemic, it is submitted that Hon'ble High Court allowed assessing officer a second opportunity to pass final assessment order in conformity with DRP directions, solely as the limitation for doing the same was still running and had not expired. This is not the situation in the case ....