IPG DXTRA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order dated 24.9.2024 was barred by limitation. The undisputed facts showed that the DRP directions were issued on 29.7.2024 and were uploaded on the ITBA system on the same date. The assessee also received these directions via email on 29.7.2024, with the AO and TPO being marked as recipients. Section 144C(13) mandates that the AO shall complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP directions are received. Therefore, considering 29.7.2024 as the date of receipt (whether by uploading or email), the time limit for passing the assessment order expired on 31.8.2024. As the assessment order was passed on 24.9.2024, it was beyond the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal, relying on judicial precedents and in the absence of any contrary details from the Revenue regarding the AO's actual date of receipt, quashed the impugned assessment order. Ground No. 2 of the appeal was allowed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, IPG DXTRA India Pvt. Ltd., filed its return of income for assessment year 2021-22. The case was selected for scrutiny due to Transfer Pricing (TP) risk parameters. A draft assessment order was passed incorporating an upward adjustment of Rs. 7,88,23,426 proposed by the TPO. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP-1), Bengaluru, which issued directions on 29.7.2024. Based on these directions, the final assessment order was passed by the Assessment Unit on 24.9.2024, assessing the income at Rs. 11,49,81,252 as against the returned income of Rs. 3,65,30,960. The assessee appealed this order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the final assessment order dated 24.9.2024, passed by the Assessment Unit, is barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the DRP directions were issued on 29.7.2024 and uploaded on the ITBA system on the same date. The assessee also received these directions via email on 29.7.2024 at 1:18 PM, with the AO and TPO being carbon-copied. According to Section 144C(13), the AO must complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP directions are received. Therefore, the assessment order should have been passed by 31.8.2024. Since it was passed on 24.9.2024, it is time-barred. The assessee relied on judicial precedents holding that the date of uploading of DRP directions is the date of receipt by the AO. Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that the date of uploading is not the date of receipt of the order, and the limitation period should be counted from the date the AO actually received the order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 144B,Section 92CA(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President 1. This appeal is filed by IPG DXTRA India Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2021-22 against the assessment order passed by the Assessment Unit of the Income Tax Department dated 24.9.2024 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] wherein the returned income of the assessee at Rs.3,65,30,960 was assessed at Rs.11,49,81,252.
IT(TP)A No.2237/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 6
The brief facts of the case show that assessee is a company engaged in the provision of public relations and communication management services, filed its return of income on 25.11.2022. The case was selected for scrutiny on TP risk parameters. Consequently notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.6.2022. Thereafter notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 12.10.2022. Subsequently the draft order u/s. 144C(13) of the Act was passed on 27.10.2023 wherein the upward adjustment proposed by the ld. TPO u/s. 92CA(3) dated 17.10.2023 of Rs.7,88,23,426 was incorporated. Subsequently the assessee filed its objections before the ld. DRP-1, Bengaluru [ld. DRP], who passed directions on 29.7.2024. Based on these directions, final assessment order was passed by the ld. AO, Assessment Unit on 24.9.2024.
As per ground No.2 of the appeal, it is the contention that the ld. AO has passed the final assessment order beyond the time limit prescribed u/s. 144C(13) of the Act and therefore the final assessment order dated 24.9.2024 is time barred and deserves to be quashed.
The ld. AR, Mr. Sharath Rao and Shri Dheeraj, submitted that the DRP directions are dated 29.7.2024, whereas the assessment order is dated 24.9.2024. He submitted that according to the provisions of section 144C(13) of the Act upon receipt of the directions of the ld. DRP, the AO must complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which such directions are received. He submitted that the ld. DRP Secretariat has confirmed that those directions were uploaded
IT(TP)A No.2237/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 6
on the ITBA System on 29.7.2024. Such confirmation was issued by the ld. ACIT & Secretary of the DRP-1, Bengaluru on 28.11.2024 in response to the letter dated 27.11.2024 by the assessee asking the ld. DRP to intimate the date on which those directions were uploaded and delivered to the AO. He submits that the directions were passed on 29.7.2024 and same were received by the assessee on email on 29.7.2024. He further submits that the email dated 29.7.2024 is sent at 1.18 PM from the Secretary of the DRP, was also sent to the AO and TPO as a carbon copy in the same email id. He submitted that the ld. DRP directions were uploaded as well as sent to the ld. AO as well as to the TPO on the same date i.e., on 29.7.2024 and hence the assessment order should have been passed on or before 31.8.2024 which was passed on 24.9.2024 is barred by limitation and therefore it needs to be quashed.
He further submitted that the ld. TPO has passed an Order Giving Effect to the directions of the ld. DRP on 05.08.2024 and therefore it is apparent that the AO received the direction on 29.7.2024. He submits that in the same email, the ld. TPO was also marked as a recipient.
To support his case, he referred to the plethora of judicial precedents wherein it has been held that the date of uploading of the directions of the ld. DRP is the date of receipt of such direction by the ld. AO. Accordingly the assessment order is barred by limitation. He referred to the following judicial precedents :-
IT(TP)A No.2237/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 6
The ld. DR vehemently submitted that the date of uploading is not the date of receipt of the order and therefore the date on which the AO received the orders, that could only be the date for counting of the limitation period.
IT(TP)A No.2237/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 6
We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. The undisputed fact shows that the direction of the ld. DRP are issued on 29.7.2024. These directions were issued by the email by the Secretary, DRP-1, Bengaluru. On 29.7.2024 at 1.18 PM through email to the assessee as well as to the TPO and the AO. The ld. DRP through its Secretary has also confirmed that the DRP directions were uploaded on ITBA System on 29.7.2024. According to the provisions of section 144C(13) of the Act, the ld. AO shall upon the receipt of the directions, within one month from the end of the month in which such directions are received, shall complete the assessment. In this case, as the DRP directions were uploaded and receipt of the direction by the email by the ld. AO is 29.7.2024, therefore the time limit provided u/s. 144C(13) expires on 31.8.2024. Admittedly the assessment order is passed on 24.9.2024, therefore the order passed by the ld. AO is barred by limitation and hence quashed. If we consider the date of uploading [29-07-2024] or the date of email [29-07-2024] as the date of receipt of the order, in either case, the order passed by the ld. AO cannot be held to be passed in time.
Accordingly the impugned assessment order passed on 24.9.2024, relying upon several judicial precedents cited before us and in the absence of any details submitted by the Revenue about the date of receipt of the order, is quashed. Ground No.2 of the appeal is allowed.
IT(TP)A No.2237/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 6
In view of the above order in ground No.2, no other grounds of appeal are required to be adjudicated.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in the open court on this 31st day of October, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/-
( KESHAV DUBEY ) ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
Bangalore, Dated, the 31st October, 2025.
/Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore.
By order
Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.
More judgments on Section 144C(13)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 486/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 498/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4558/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026