TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1480
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 08.09.2021 passed u/s. 144C(5) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal :- 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AD erred in assessing the income of the Appellant under the normal provisions of the Act at INR 14,74,90,025, in pursuance to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("Ld. DRP"), as against the returned loss of INR 2,37,85,638. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. AO is bad in law and void ab-initio as the same has been passed in pursuance to the Ld. DRP directions dated September 8, 2021 (issued with inordinate delay) which are equally bad in law. and thus, the orders ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces of the case and in law, the Ld. AD/DRP / ΤΡΟ erred in rejecting transaction-by-transaction benchmarking approach fumished by the Appellant during assessment proceedings and erroneously using Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM") on an aggregate basis. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP/TPO erred In disregarding the benchmarking undertaken by the Appellant using Comparable Uncontrolled Price ("CUP") method with respect to import of raw materials from associated enterprises and Resale Price Method ("RPM") for benchmarking the trading segment of the Appellant. 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP/TPO erred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....selected for scrutiny by issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel submitted that a reference was made to the transfer pricing officer for determining arm's length price u/s. 92CA(3) in respect of international transactions entered into by the assessee during the financial year 2005-06 relevant to the assessment year 2006-07. 5. The TPO passed order dated 16.10.2009 determining the difference in arm's length price of international transactions of the assessee with its associated enterprises not accepting the submissions of the assessee and an adjustment of Rs. 18,72,68,697/- was proposed in the draft assessment order and the assessee had filed objections before the DRP. The DRP vide order dated 27.09.2010 had decided the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the decisions rendered in the context of the provisions u/s. 201 of the IT Act and the decisions rendered there in, especially the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2017) (245 taxmann 80) and CIT Vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (305 ITR 137) submitted that reasonable time of four years should be adopted in a case where no limitation is prescribed. 8. On the other hand the Ld. DR submitted that no time limit is prescribed in the Act to dispose of the objections of the assessee by the DRP when the matter is restored by the Tribunal and therefore, in the absence of any time limit the directions passed by the DRP even though with a delay such directions as well as final ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'ble Delhi High Court following the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. NHK Broadcasting Corporation (305 ITR 137) (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd (323 ITR 230) (Delhi) and Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd. v. Union of India (2016) 385 ITR 436 (Delhi), held that a reasonable period of limitation was to be read into the Act for completion of the proceedings. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court also held that in the absence of any limitation period in respect of payments to non- residents u/s. 195 r.w.s. 201 of the Act, proceedings could be initiated within the reasonable time. 12. In the case of CIT Vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (305 ITR 137) (Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3) of section 201 of the Act were amended placing the time limit of six years for initiation of proceedings u/s. 201 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2010. The assessment year involved in this case is assessment year 2006-07 and even assuming that the sub section (3) is applicable for A.Y. 2006-07, the proceedings cannot be initiated after the expiry of six years from the end of the financial year in which payment is made or credit is given, the directions passed by the DRP after lapse of more than 10- 1/2 years is certainly not a reasonable period and it can be said that the proceedings of DRP/ AO are clearly barred by limitation. Thus, respectfully following the above decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts and applying ratio therein we hold that the....