SQUARE YARDS CONSULTING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 880/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 August 2026AY 2016-178 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2016-17, where the Assessing Officer (AO) made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(1) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee argued that Section 92BA(i), which defined specified domestic transactions, was omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, effective from April 1, 2017, and thus the reference was invalid.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the omission of Section 92BA(i) by the Finance Act, 2017, meant that it was deemed to have never existed in the statute. Consequently, the cognizance taken by the AO and the reference made to the TPO were invalid and bad in law, making the consequential orders unsustainable.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether a reference to the TPO under Section 92CA(1) was valid when the relevant provision defining specified domestic transactions (Section 92BA(i)) had been omitted from the statute prior to the assessment year in question.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92BA,Section 92CA,Section 143(3),Section 144(3),Section 40A(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’:NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Prabhakar Kumar, CA, Shri Animesh Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Hearing: 26.05.2026

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM :

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the ACIT, Circle 24 (1), New Delhi under section 143(3) read with section 144(C)(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act”) for Assessment Year 2016-17 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C (5) of the Act raising the following grounds of appeal :-

2 “a. The subject transaction in assessment order is not specified domestic transaction in the light of the binding order pronounced by Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore in M/s. Texport Overseas Private Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 92BA

All 181 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92BA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →