TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 448
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081355917(1), dated 30.09.2025, passed against the assessment order by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai-34, u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), dated 20.12.2017, for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under: 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in partly allowing the appeal of assessee on the issue of transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 37,77,11,566/-? 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in allowing the deduction u/ s 37(1) of the I.T. Act for Sales promoti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of trading and marketing of fast-moving consumer goods. It filed its return of income on 30.11.2014, reporting total income as a loss at Rs. 30,40,77,869/-. During the relevant year, assessee entered into specified domestic transactions with its related party/AE aggregating to Rs. 113,00,28,146/-. These comprised purchase of finished goods amounting to Rs. 77,51,78,887/-, payment of interest amounting to Rs. 34,50,47,259/- and reimbursement of rent amounting to Rs. 98,02,000/-. The matter was referred by ld. Assessing Officer to the ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of arm's length price (ALP). Ld. TPO passed order under section 92CA(3) dated 26.10.2017. Ld. TPO, inter alia, rejected the comparables selected by the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessee has also filed its cross-objection against the same appellate order. 5. Before embarking upon the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as the cross-objection filed by assessee, we note that the impugned assessment order has been passed by the office of ld. DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai. The location of ld. Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order assumes significance for determining the ordinary territorial jurisdiction of the Bench of the Tribunal. In this respect, we take note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. ABC Papers Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 332 (SC). Hon'ble Court while considering the question of territorial jurisdiction held that the appropriate High Court for disp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceedings from which the present appeal arises were undertaken by an Assessing Officer situated at Chennai, in the state of Tamil Nadu and not within the ordinary territorial jurisdiction of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal. 5.2. We further take note of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of MSPL Ltd. vs. PCIT & Ors., Writ Petition (L) No.3856 of 2020, dated 21.05.2021, wherein the Hon'ble Court had occasion to examine the question whether a pending appeal could be transferred administratively from one Bench of the Tribunal to another Bench situated outside the headquarters and in another State. Hon'ble Court after examining section 255 of the Act and the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it provides for the territorial jurisdiction of the different Benches. ... In so far the Benches at Mumbai are concerned, those have jurisdiction over Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban and Thane Districts of Maharashtra. Clause 4 is interesting and it says that the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bench will be determined not by the place of business or residence of assessee but by the location of the office of ld. Assessing Officer." 6. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, we find that the assessment order giving rise to the present proceedings was passed by the office of ld. DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai. The mere fact that the subsequent appellate order has been passed by ld. CIT(A)-56, Mumbai would not ....