TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....general in nature, not pressed, kept open or are academic/consequential in nature. Hence, the remaining grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 4. Vide Ground No. 3 the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment order framed u/s. 143(3)/ 144C(13)/144B of the Act on the ground that the same was not passed by the AO in conformity with the direction of the ld. DRP. 5. The brief facts of the case on hand are that the assessee, a private limited company, is engaged in the business of providing software development services to its AEs. The TPO passed an order u/s. 92CA of the Act dated 13.01.2025 proposing TP adjustment of Rs. 6,15,99,868.00 only. Aggrieved by the order of the TPO, the assessee filed objections before the Ld. DRP on 02.04.2025. Pursuant thereto, the Ld. DRP vide its directions dated 18.12.2025 granted partial relief to assessee and consequently reduced the TP adjustment to Rs. 4,53,11,216. However, while passing the final assessment order dated 20.12.2025, the AO failed to give effect to the directions issued by the Ld. DRP and proceeded to determine income without considering the relief granted by the ld. DRP. Thus, the final assessment order has been passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jurisdictional defect rendering the entire assessment void. The Ld. DR also relied upon the decisions of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Hitachi Astemo Haryana (P.) Ltd. reported in 158 taxmann.com 25 and Honda R&D (India) (P.) Ltd. reported in 168 taxmann.com 505 to contend that the matter may be restored to the file of the AO for passing a fresh order in conformity with the directions of the Ld. DRP. Accordingly, it was prayed that the assessment should not be quashed and, at the highest, the issue may be remanded to the AO for proper implementation of the directions issued by the Ld. DRP. 9. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record before us. The undisputed facts emerging from the records reveal that the TPO vide order passed u/s. 92CA of the Act dated 13.01.2025 proposed a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 6,15,99,868.00 only. Aggrieved, the assessee filed objections before the Ld. DRP. The Ld. DRP after considering the objections raised by the assessee, granted partial relief and directed modification of the transfer pricing adjustment, pursuant to which the adjustment stood reduced to Rs. 4,53,11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amed by the AO is sustainable in the given facts and circumstances. This question has been answered by the order of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Xchnging Solutions Limited in IT(TP)A No.2664/Bang/2017 dated 21.12.2020 in favor of the assessee, the relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under: "5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Similar issue came up for consideration in the case of Flextronics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in IT(TP)A No.832/Bang/2017 dt.31.12.2018 has held in paras 9 to 12 as under: "9. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that on identical facts, this Tribunal in the case of Software Paradigms Infotech (P.) Ltd. (supra) has quashed the final order of assessment observing as follows: - "3.3.1 We have heard the rival contention of both parties in the matter and perused and carefully considered the material on record. The undisputed facts on record, as brought out by the discussions above, is that the A0, as per law, was required to pass the final order of assessment dated 17/1/2014 for asst. year 2009-10 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act in conformity with the directions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uashed on the ground that the same is not in conformity with the provisions of section 144C of the Act and further on the ground that the time for passing the final order of assessment is barred by time, we are of the view that the other issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal and the grounds raised by the revenue in its appeal does not require any consideration. As far as the decision cited by the learned DR in the case of H & M Hennes & Mauritz India (P) Ltd. (supra) is concerned, we find that in the s aid decision, the counsel for the Assessee as in p o the said order prayed for setting as the final order of assessment of AO to pass orders in accordance with the directions of the DRP. Thus, it is a case of concession by the Assessee and not on the basis of arguments advanced by the parties.) The law is well settled that a decision on concession of the counsel cannot be regarded as a precedent. Therefore, the decision cited by the learned DR does not support the case of the revenue. 11. In view of the conclusion that the assessment order is null and void, the other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits of the addition made do not require any a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....44C of the IT Act, the Assessing Officer is bound by the directions issued by the DRP and required to pass the assessment order in conformity with the directions issued within one month from the end of month in which such directions are issued. 7. The ITAT has recorded that impugned order is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 144C of the IT Act and barred by time. 8. Shri Dilip's contention is, the Assessing Officer has rightly passed the order within time. But it is relevant to note that the said order is not in conformity with Section 144C of the IT Act. Hence, no exception can be taken to the impugned order passed by the ITAT." 12. In view of the above we hold that the final assessment framed by the AO in contravention to the direction of the ld. DRP is not sustainable. 9.4 Respectfully following the aforesaid binding precedents and considering the facts of the present case, we hold that the impugned final assessment order having been passed without incorporating and giving effect to the directions of the Ld. DRP is contrary to the mandatory provisions of section 144C of the Act. Consequently, the impugned final assessment order is....