AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 917
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pursuant to Section 254 read with Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 635,06,40,753. 2. This matter is now before the Tribunal for a second round of appeal. 3. The facts of the case indicate that the assessee serves as the parent company of the Mphasis Group, operating in the field of software development services and information technology enabled services. The assessee's business is organized into three distinct segments: software development, business process outsourcing, and infrastructure technology outsourcing. 4. The assessee submitted its income tax return on 6 October 2010, reporting a total income of Rs. 288,31,65,798. Following the merger of another company with th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isallowed due to non-deduction of tax. The AO rejected these claims on the grounds that they were not included in the original return of income. 7. Accordingly, the draft Assessment Order was issued. Upon consideration of the objections presented before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), directions were provided on 12.12.2014 granting certain reliefs. 8. Subsequently, the final Assessment Order was passed on 29 January 2015, determining the assessee's total income at Rs. 636,30,78,696.The issue reached the coordinate bench wherein a. The transfer pricing adjustment of selling and commission networking charges was remanded to the learned dispute resolution panel to consider the issue based on the evidence and deta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anel. Additionally, the officer fulfilled the responsibilities assigned by ITAT. Consequently, he issued an order establishing the assessee's total income at Rs. 635,06,40,753. 12. The assessee is dissatisfied with this order, asserting that the learned Assessing Officer was required to issue first a draft assessment order, but instead issued a final assessment order. Therefore, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in PCIT vs. CISCO Systems Capital India Private Limited (ITA No. 128/Bang/2021) as well as the ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it is contended that the assessment order is invalid and should be set aside. 13. In addition to submitting the relevant documents, the Authorized Representative provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. 16. We have thoroughly examined the opposing arguments and reviewed the orders issued by the lower authorities. The relevant facts are clearly presented above. The assessee contests the order implementing the ITAT decision under Section 254 read with Section 92 CA of the Act, dated 30 March 2024. The ITAT's order dated 14 June 2021 partially remanded the matters to the Assessing Officer (AO), the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), and the Transfer Pricing Officer, although only the AO is listed as a respondent. If this remand was not appropriate, the AO could have sought rectification. 17. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) issued an order pursuant to Section 92CA(3) read with Section 254 of the Act on January 24, 2024. Subsequent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In our view, it is not appropriate for an appellate forum to restore matters directly to the ld. DRP; rather, the correct procedure is to remit them solely to the learned Assessing Officer (ld. AO). The DRP serves as a panel for issuing binding directions to the ld. AO and, according to section 144C(1), only the assessee is authorized to approach the ld. DRP. Therefore, if a higher forum inadvertently restores matters to the ld. DRP, there is no justification for the ld. AO to issue a draft assessment order in such cases. This is because the primary purpose of a draft assessment order is to provide the assessee with an opportunity to approach the DRP. Once the DRP has already issued its directions and communicated them to the ld. AO, whic....