DCIT CC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. WORLD SPORTS (INDIA) P . LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5329/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 April 2023AY 2010-117 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that both the Transfer Pricing Officer's order and the final assessment order were barred by limitation. Consequently, these orders were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment order was passed after the prescribed time limit. The Transfer Pricing Officer's order was also passed one day beyond the stipulated deadline.

What were the issues?

Whether the Transfer Pricing Officer's order and the final assessment order were passed within the statutory time limits prescribed by the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 144C,Section 92CA,Section 153B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, Shri Madhur Agrawal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, DR
Hearing: 25.04.2023Pronounced: 28.04.2023

Heard together (2 matters)

CO No. 267/Mum/2019
ITA No.5329/Mum/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

and 2013 and CO No. 267/Mum/2019 [ by Assessee] are filed against the appellate order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-58, Mumbai [the learned CIT (A)] for A.Y. 2010-11, wherein appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Section 153A read with section 143(3) read with section 144C (13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27th May, 2014 passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cirlce-20, Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer), the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

2.

Against this the learned Assessing Officer has preferred the appeal raising following four grounds of appeal:-

“1. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the CUP method adopted by TPO for making adjustment of ₹ 5,979,23,256/- in respect of international transaction pertaining to grant of rest of the world rights 9excluding Indian sub-continent rights) not being at arm’s length in terms of the provision of section 92C(1) and 92c(2) of the Act r/w rule 10d of the IT Rules.

3. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the cUP method adopted by TPO on the ground that data pertaining to the year is not contemporaneous without appreciating that the same is contemporaneous as TPO has used the data of net present value of an uncontrolled price arrived at by applying a reasonable discount factor.

4. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the net present value arrived at after applying appropriate discount factor to be similar as undiscounted future value and thereby holding the data used to be non contemporaneous.”

3.

Assessee has also filed appeal and Cross Objection No.267/mum/2019, assessee has raised a solitary ground against the sustenance of the addition of ₹2,84,75,705/-.

4.

At the time of hearing, assessee has raised an application for additional grounds of appeal, raising following two grounds:-

“1. The Transfer Pricing Officer (ACIT-TP-II(6)) erred in passing the Transfer pricing order under Section 92CA(3) dated 30.01.2014, beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 92CA(3A). The appellants submit that the Transfer

6.

In the present case, search was conducted by the Income Tax Department on 21st April, 2010. Notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued on 21st February, 2011. As assessee has entered into international transaction reference was made to the learned Transfer Pricing Officer who passed an order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act on 30th January, 2014. Consequent to that draft Assessment order under Section 144C (1) of the Act was passed on 25th March, 2014 and final order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 27th May, 2014.

7.

For that assessment year the time limit for passing the order under Section 153B of the Act was 31st March, 2014 and

10.

In view of our decision in above additional ground of the assessee, the other grounds of appeal in the appeal and CO as well as all the grounds in the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer become infructuous and therefore, same are dismissed.

11.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO as well as appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.04.2023.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →