TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- "1. That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)") dated 30.10.2024 and later on passed under Section 154 rw.s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), dated 18.11.2024, dismissing the appeal of the appellant company against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 18.04.2021 and subsequently order u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 25.04.2022, is erroneous, bad in law and on facts and against the principles of natural justice. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not quashing the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant before the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) during the course of appellant proceedings Without prejudice to the above: 3. That the Ld. CITIA) erred in law and on facts in not quashing the order passed by the ld. TPO u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, dated 31.01.2023 later rectified order u/s 154/92C(3) on 18.03.2021, on account of being illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction, since the ld. TPO determined the ALP for "other transactions" amounting to Rs. 115.05 crores (as reported at Sr. Nos. 23(A) of the Form 3CEB), for which no prior approval was obtained from the Competent authority, i.e., the PCIT/CIT, and no valid reference was made by the AO under Section 92CA(1) of the Act read with the CBDT Instruction No. 3/2016 dated1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that, before determining the ALP of the eligible profits earned from the transfer of goods amounting to Rs. 115.05 crores from the eligible unit to non-eligible units, i.e., Associated Enterprises ["AEs"), the ld. AO was required to establish that the impugned transactions failed to meet the test of ALP as per Sections 80- IA(8) or 80-IA(10) read with Section 92BA(v) of the Act. 4.2 The ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appellant's contention that the AO without fulfilling the conditions under section 92C(3) of the Act referred the matter to the TPO and further TPO erred in not providing proper opportunity to the appellant by not confronting/ clarifying the finally selection of 6 companies, wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant had adopted the "Other Method" as per Rule L0AB for benchmarking the impugned transactions. 6. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts, without analysing the terms of Rule 10B(2)b and confirming the action of the ld. AO/TPO in selecting the six comparables companies by applying inappropriate filters such as. a. Including functionally dissimilar companies; b. Failing to apply the turnover filter with an upper limit of Rs. 200 crores and a lower limit of 10%o of the turnover of the appellant company; c. Including comparable companies facing exceptional circumstances such as demerger, amalgamation, significant fall in turnover, and continuous losses; d. Including comparable companies sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rgaon vide order dated 17.05.2017 under section 127(2) of the Act. It is contended that the PCIT Gurgaon, passed the order u/s 127(2) without providing any opportunity of hearing to the assessee as mandated under section 127(2). The assessee raised an objection before the PCIT, Gurgaon, contending that jurisdiction lies with Faridabad as its registered office is located there. It is stated that the PCIT, Gurgaon issued a corrigendum to the order dated 17.05.2017, stating that the correct AO is DCIT, Circle 10(1), Delhi (earlier wrongly mentioned as Circle 12(1), Delhi). The corrigendum was also issued without providing an opportunity of hearing. 4. Thereafter, the DCIT, Circle 12(1), Delhi issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unity of hearing is not afforded to the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajanta Industries vs CBDT 102 ITR 281. 6. Per Contra, the ld. DR stated that the assessee has participated in the proceedings and therefore at this stage, the assessee cannot challenge the order under section 127(2) of the Act. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that it is an admitted fact that no opportunity was granted by the PCIT, Gurgaon, before passing order under section 127(2) of the Act dated 17.05.2017. Provisions under section 127(2) mandates that when the PCIT is to pass an order for transferring of jurisdiction of a ....