TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 596
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....incorporated, against which the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Panel issued its directions on 6 October 2025, and the final assessment order was thereafter passed under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Income-tax Act, determining the assessee's total income at Rs. 458,018,100 as against the returned income of Rs. 224,389,580 on 12/11/2025. The sole adjustment made was under section 92 CA of the Act, amounting to Rs. 233,628,520. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The impugned assessment order dated 12.11.2025 under section 143(3) read with section 144C (13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is barred by limitation and deserves to be quashed as such. 2. The learned Authorities Below erred in making and upholding the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 23,36,28,520 in respect of the software development services rendered by the Appellant. 3. The learned Authorities Below erred in the determination of the profit level indicator of the comparable R Systems International Limited. 4. The learned Authorities Below erred in excluding Sasken Technologies Limited as a comparable. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the learned transfer pricing officer dated 30 September 2024 under section 92 CA (3) of the act is barred by limitation. 6. The learned authorized representative Shri Bharadwaj Seshadri, advocate reiterated the prayer stated in the application for admission of the additional ground and stated that same deserves to be admitted. 7. The learned and CIT DR Dr Divya K J vehemently opposed the additional ground and submitted that this additional ground was not raised before the learned lower authorities. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the learned lower authorities as well as the application made by the assessee for admission of additional ground. We find that by the additional ground the assessee is challenging the order of the learned transfer pricing officer/ final order of the ld Ao holding that same is barred by limitation. We find that this issue goes to the root of appeal and bona fide deserves to be admitted. Accordingly, we admit the additional ground of appeal. 9. Adverting to the additional ground, authorized representative submitted that the order of the coordinate bench is passed on 20 September 2022 wherein the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r proceed to decide the additional ground of appeal which is a jurisdictional issue about the time barring of the assessment order. 15. Admittedly in this case the return of income was filed on 28 November 2017 on which the draft assessment order was passed on 24 January 2021, the learned dispute resolution panel passed the direction on 24 January 2022 which culminated into the final assessment order on 10 February 2022. The order of the coordinate bench on appeal by the assessee was passed on 20 September 2022. Undoubtedly, the principal Commissioner of income tax has filed an appeal before the honourable Karnataka High Court in ITA No. 325 / 2023 wherein it is specifically mentioned that the order of the coordinate bench was received by the assessing officer on 17 October 2022. This was the date submitted before the honourable High Court for compliance with the limitation. 16. Section 153 (3) of the income tax act, provides that wherein the order of fresh assessment on the facts transfer pricing assessment order in pursuance of an order passed under section 254 of the income tax act setting aside or cancelling an assessment can be made at any time before the expiry of nine ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct was passed. 19. In this case the order of the income tax appellate tribunal was passed on 20 September 2022 wherein the assessee raised almost 9 Grounds for inclusion and exclusion of the several comparable and challenging some of the filters. The coordinate bench excluded the companies whose turnover is not within the range of Rs. 200 cr to Rs. 2000 crores as per paragraph No. 14 of the order. Further with respect to 5 comparables contested by the assessee for exclusion, ITAT agreed for exclusion of four comparables had restored the exclusion of one comparable i.e. R systems International Limited to the file of the learned file of the AO/TPO. Further assessee contested before inclusion of Sasken technologies Ltd which was also restored by the ITAT to the file of the TPO for fresh consideration. Thus, part of the order directed the learned AO / TPO to exclude some of the comparable is, part of the order was restored for fresh examination. In view of the above findings of the ITAT it is absolutely clear that ITAT did not set aside or cancelled the order of assessment or reassessment. Therefore, the case of the assessee does not fall within the provisions of section 153 (3) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... restored to the file of the AO. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. In that circumstances also the honourable High Court held in paragraph No. 9 of the order that whether there has been a reference under section 92 CA (1) to the transfer pricing officer or the matter being remitted to the transfer pricing officer by the tribunal to decide the issue under section 92 CA (3). There is a world of difference between the matter being remitted by the tribunal to the transfer pricing officer under section 92 CA and reference by the assessing officer to the transfer pricing officer under the same provisions of section 92 CA. The honourable High Court referred to the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in New Delhi television Ltd versus DRP 162 taxmann.com 692 and extensively quoted paragraph No. 63 - 81 of that order and reached at the conclusion that that the matter remitting back to the transfer pricing officer by the tribunal is not the same as the reference by the assessing officer to the transfer pricing officer. Further in paragraph No. 10 the honourable High Court considered whether the limitation would expire on 31 March 2024 is contended ....