TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1716
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), pursuant to the directions dated 08.12.2025 issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai under section 144C(5) of the Act, for the assessment year 2022-23. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant objects to the notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 31 May 2023 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(1)(1), Delhi since the said authority lacked jurisdiction over the Appellant. 2. The Assessing Officer erred in passing the order under section 143(3) read with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act by treating the Reserve for Unexpired Risks as a reserve. 9. The Assessing Officer erred in considering the provision for Reserve for Unexpired Risks as an unascertained liability. 10. The assessment order is vitiated by errors of law and fact. 11. The assessment order is vitiated by factual errors and by overlooking and/or acting contrary to the material and evidence on record." 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a company incorporated in and a tax resident of the United Kingdom and is engaged in the business of insurance/reinsurance. It filed its return of income on 28.11.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 29,28,390/- under the normal provisions of the Act and bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pricing Officer issued a show-cause notice on 13.01.2025 requiring a response by 16.01.2025 and, therefore, the assessee was left with only three days to identify and collate the extensive supporting record. It was further submitted that, during the transfer-pricing proceedings, the assessee had primarily focused on the regulatory requirements flowing from the IRDAI (Lloyd's India) Regulations, 2016 and it was only while preparing the present appeal, upon legal advice, that the necessity of placing the contemporaneous documentary record in its present form was appreciated. The non-production of the evidence before the lower authorities was thus neither deliberate nor attributable to lack of bona fides. He prayed that the evidence be admitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prises contemporaneous primary documents and bears directly upon the controversy whether the services were actually rendered and received, whether the assessee derived benefit therefrom and whether the payments satisfy the arm's length standard. The adjustment was made principally for want of complete and sufficient evidence concerning the need, rendition and benefit of the services and the underlying costs. The short interval of three days between the show-cause notice and the date fixed for reply, read with the explanation that the assessee had concentrated upon the regulatory framework during the proceedings, constitutes a reasonable explanation for its inability to place the complete documentary record before the Transfer Pricing Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese grounds are kept open and we have expressed no opinion on their merits. Accordingly, grounds 3 to 6 are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Grounds 7 and 8 relate to the addition of Rs. 7,71,90,607/- on account of Reserve for Unexpired Risks while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that clause (b) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB applies only where an amount carried to a reserve has been debited to the statement of profit and loss. According to him, the Reserve for Unexpired Risks was not debited to the statement of profit and loss and, therefore, the foundational condition for making an addition under the said clause was absent. He further submitted that the very ....