TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 786
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....holesale (Trading) business International related party transactions 2. Sales of product/goods shown in the ITR is less than the FOB value of exports shown in the Export Import Data Exports 3. Large difference in the opening stock of current year (in Trading & Manufacturing account) and closing stock of previous year shown in P&L a/c as per return of income Stock valuation 4. High liabilities as compared to low income/receipts High creditors/ liabilities 3. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 02.06.2023, notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 10.08.2023, 07.11.2023 and 24.01.2024 along with questionnaire were issued. The assessee submitted replies. 3.1 The case of assessee was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") on 01.03.2024 for examination and determination of Arm's Length Price ("ALP"). Ld. TPO passed order dated 25.01.2025 u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act. Ld. AO passed draft assessment order u/s. 144C (1) of the Act on 25.02.2025. The assessee filed objections before Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Penal ("DRP") on 27.03.2025, Hon'ble DRP issued directions dated 29.11.2025 u/s. 144C(5) of the Act. Ld. AO passed final assessment order dated 06.01.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsactions of sales made to Associate Enterprise. TEAS PV. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO/TPO has erred both on facts and in law in wrongly computing the operating margin of the assessee company while determining the arm length price of the transaction. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO/TPO has erred both on facts and in law in selecting the new comparables without conducting a proper FAR (Functions, Assets, and Risks) analysis, thereby rendering the selection inappropriate and unsustainable. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO/TPO has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the filter adopted by the assessee while selecting the comparable companies despite the fact that the same is an appropriate filter. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/TPO has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the comparables selected by the assessee for benchmarking the transactions, despite the fact that these comparables were selected after conducted proper FAR analysis and therefore these are the good comparables to the assessee. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ging interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act. 20. (i) Without prejudice to the above, the learned AO has erred in assessing the total income at Rs. 11,47,36,283/- in the computation sheet attached to the assessment order as against the income of Rs. 7,82,07,742/- assessed in the assessment order. (ii) That the amount of Rs. 3,65,28,541/- under the head income from other sources is wrongly included in the computation sheet despite the fact that the same was already considered in the returned loss of Rs. 21,74,92,258/- and therefore the same will results in double addition and needs to be corrected. 21. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal." 5. Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee regarding Ground of Appeal No. 3 submitted as under: - 1. The undisputed facts of the case are as follows: Assessment Year under consideration AY 2022-23 Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act 02.06.2023 TPO's Order u/s. 92CA (3) 25.01.2025 Draft Assessment Order passed u/s. 144C(1) of the Act 25.02.2025 Objections filed by the assessee before Id. DRP 27.03.2025 DRP Dir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation letter to DRP order unambiguously shows 31.05.2024 as date of uploading of DRP order. This fact cannot be disputed. Except this critical and relevant information everything else (like when order is visible to AO, date of uploading some document by DCIT/ACIT circle 2 (1) (1) Delhi) has been submitted by Respondents. It is fair to conclude that date of uploading DRP order on ITBA portal is 31.05.2024. As per section 144C(13) of the Act, assessment had to be completed on or before 31.05.2022. In present case the assessment is completed only on 30.6.2022 i.e., it is time barred null and void. Therefore, impugned assessment order dated 30.07.2022 is set aside being barred by limitation. Accordingly, ground of appeal no. 4 is allowed. • Delhi High Court in the case of Louis Dreyfus Company India Private Limited Versus DCIT, 2024 (3) TMI 62, dated 30.01.2024 • Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. M/s Fiberhome India Private Limited, 2024 (2) TMI 1382, dated 05.02.2024. • Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Sterling Oil Resources Ltd., 2025 (2) TMI 499, dated 11.02.2025 • Telangana High Court in the case of Rapiscan System....