TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reciation Claim iii. Custom duty paid iv. Sales turnover/receipts v. Foreign Remittance vi. Share premium vii. International transaction(s) viii. Reduction in profit due to ICDS ix. Loss from currency fluctuations 3. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 20.09.2018 and notices u/s 142(1) of the act dated 27.02.2019 and 20.02.2021 were issued. The assessee filed necessary details. Considering the nature of international transactions entered into by the assessee company with its associated enterprises contained in audit report in Form 3CEB, it was considered expedient to compute the arm's length price. A reference u/s 92CA(1) of the Act was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') on 31.03.2019 to determine arm's length price u/s 92CA(3) of the Act in respect of the international transactions. Ld. TPO passed order u/s 92CA(3) on 23.01.2021, the order was uploaded by the concerned TPO on 04.02.2021 on ITBA Portal. Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer 1(1)(2), New Delhi vide order u/s 92CA(3) dated 23.01.2021 had made an upward adjustment to the arm's length price by Rs. 98,57,303/- in relation to the international transactions. Draft assessment or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... identical issue, which is against the principles of judicial hierarchy. 6. That without prejudice to Ground No. 3, the Ld. TPO and consequently the DRP have grossly erred in law and on facts of the appellant's case:- 6.1 in not considering the IGS agreements and invoices received from the AEs as evidences of actual receipt of IGS without providing cogent reasons; 6.2 in erroneously stating that the e-mail correspondences provided by the appellant as evidences of actual receipt, requisition and benefit of IGS are very general correspondences with no evidence of any specialized advice or service by the AEs; and 6.3 in erroneously stating that the appellant has not provided any evidence pertaining to the cost incurred by the AEs in rendering the IGS along with the details of allocation keys. 7. That without prejudice to Grounds No. 3 to 6, the Ld. TPO and consequently the DRP have grossly erred in law and on facts of the appellant's case in rejecting the Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM') as the most appropriate method, disregarding the aggregation of the IGS transaction with other international transactions of the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthorized Represemntative submitted summary note regarding ground of appeal no. 3 as under: "Issue of Limitation u/s 144C(13)-Comparison of Income Tax Timelines in Appellant's Case vis-à-vis Other Judicial Decisions In this regard, it is noteworthy to bring to your Honours' attention to significant rulings of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and coordinate benches of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi ITAT which have similar facts matrix as of the Appellant w.r.t the time-barring Final Assessment Order passed u/s 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") in the light of time extensions granted by the Government, which have been listed below: 1. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. [TS-94-HC-2022(BOM)-TP] (Refer Page No. 16-31 of CLNC) 2. Rio Tinto India Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT |2025-TH-158-ITAT-DEL-INTL) (Refer Page No. 32-37 of CLNC) 3. Rolls Royce India Pvt Ltd [TS-386-ITAT-2025(DEL)-TP] (Refer Page No. 38-58 of CLNC) 4. Achampet Solar Private Ltd [TS-310-ITAT-2026(DEL)-TP) 5. Ghanpur Solar Private Limited (TS-311-ITAT-2026(DEL)-TP] * Summary of judgements providing the timeline for passing the Fina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts, the RTI response (showing Date of upload of DRP Directions in DRP Module in ITBA), the mandatory provisions of Section 144C(13) of the Act, and the judicial precedents relied upon, it is respectfully submitted that the impugned Final Assessment Order is barred by limitation and, therefore, deserves to be quashed and declared null and void. Distinguishing the Facts of Supreme Court Ruling on Time Extension vis-à-vis Appellant's Facts With reference to the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case in MA 2021 of 2022, dated 10.01.2022 [Refer Page No. 1 to 5 of Case Law and Notification Compendium ("CLNC")] regarding the extension of the period of limitation for filing petitions/applications/ suits/ appeals/ all other quasi-judicial proceedings, in light of the spread of the new variant of COVID-19 in India, as referred to by the Departmental Representative ("DR") in the query raised in the Appellant's case, it is respectfully submitted as under: * The said ruling was pronounced on 10.01.2022, whereas the DRP Directions dated 22.09.2021 were uploaded on the DRP Module of the Income Tax Business Application ("ITBA") on 29.09.2021. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... retrospective effect from 31 March 2020, with aim to provide the relaxation of time limit for compliances or completion of actions under the specified Acts including Income Tax, falling during the period 20th March 2020 to 31st December 2020, to 31 March 2021. The said TOLA further empowered the government to further extend this period by way of notification(s). Accordingly, the timelines specified under the Income Tax Act, 1961 were extended vide TOLA and various CBDT Notifications as follows: Table 2: Summary of dates extended by the TOLA and CBDT Notifications Sr. No. Particulars Date Extension 1 TOLA Act, 2020 u/s 3(1)(a) dt. 29.09.2020 31.03.2021 2 CBDT Notification 20/2021 dt. 31.03.2021 (Refer Page No. 10-15 of CLNC) 30.04.2021 3 CBDT Notification 38/2021 dt. 27.04.2021 (Refer Page No. 10-15 of CLNC) 30.06.2021 4 CBDT Notification 74/2021 dt. 25.06.2021 (Refer Page No. 10-15 of CLNC) [No reference of passing of Final Assessment Order u/s 144C(13) in pursuance of DRP Directions was given.] 30.09.2021 It is evident from the above table that the timeline for completion of actions relating to the passing of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of vital events and dates of Nikon and present case are:- S. No. Events Nikon Present 1. Directors of DRP issued under section 144(c)5 17.03.2022 08.04.2022 2. Assessment case transferred from Faceless AO to JAO under section 144B(8) of the Act 22.04.2022 Present case transferred on 25.4.2022 3. DRP order received by JAO 02.05.2022 18.05.2022 4. Final assessment order passed 30.06.2022 30.06.2022 5. Limitation from April 2022 will end on 31.05.2022 31.05.2022 17. In the context of faceless assessment process time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic document (in this case DRP order) is required to be ascertained by reference to section 13 of Information Technology Act, 2000 which is the basis prescribed under section 144B of Income Tax Act also (refer section 144 B (6)(v)). Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of GS Chatha Rice Mills [(2021)2SCC 209-J para 85)= 2020-TIOL-157-SC-CUS-LB, interpreted this very provision. Applying principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, only relevant fact necessary for deciding Ground No. 4 in present appeal relating to time barred assessment, is time of....