QUALCOMM INDIA PVT. LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1503/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 January 2026AY 2016-201720 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 144C prescribes a complete statutory cycle for assessments involving eligible assessees, with its own distinct timelines. It reasoned that Section 153 governs the period up to the draft order, while Section 144C governs the process thereafter, and that the assessment orders were not barred by limitation.

What were the facts?

Multiple assessees challenged their assessment orders on grounds of limitation, arguing that the orders were passed beyond the time prescribed by Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when read with Section 144C. The Revenue objected, citing ongoing litigation before the Supreme Court on a similar issue.

What were the issues?

Whether the time limits prescribed under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act are applicable to final assessment orders passed under Section 144C(13), or if Section 144C operates as a separate statutory mechanism with its own timelines.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144C,Section 153

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)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, DELHI BENCH “I”NEW DELHI

Before: SHRIVIKAS AWASTHY & SHRISANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate &
For Respondent: Ms. Ashmita Sharma, Advocate (Virtual)
Hearing: 14.01.2026

Heard together (6 matters)

SA 650/Del/2025
I.T.A No. 1939/Del/2022
I.T.A No.5939/Del/2024
I.T.A No.525/Del/2022
I.T.A No.5602/Del/2024
I.T.A No.1503/Del/2021

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

per section 144C (13) and three months under section 153 (2A) is available, within which period no orders have been passed in the present cases. The reference made by the learned senior counsels on the judgments in Nokia India (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Vedanta Ltd. (Supra) is well founded. The timeline given under the Act is to be strictly followed.” [Emphasized by us] Thus, the Hon’ble High Court negatived the arguments made by the Department on ‘non obstante’ clause used in section 144C of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court thus, concluded:- “27. For the reasons set out herein before, we conclude as under: (a) The provisions of Sections 144C and 153 are not mutually exclusive, but are rather mutually inclusive. The period of limitation prescribed under Section 153 (2A) or 153 (3) is applicable, when the matters are remanded back irrespective of whether it is to the Assessing Officer or TPO or the DRP, the duty is on the assessing officer to pass orders. (b) Even in case of remand, the TPO or the DRP have to follow the time limits as provided under the Act. The entire proceedings including the hearing and directions have to be issued by the DRP within 9 months as contemplated under section 144C(12) of the Income-tax Act, (c) Irrespective of whether the DRP concludes the proceedings and issues directions or not, within 9 months, the Assessing officer is to pass orders within the stipulated time, (d) In matter involving transfer pricing, upon remand to DRP, the Assessing officer is to pass a denovo draft order and the entire proceedings as in the original assessment, would have to be completed within 12 months, as the very purpose of extension is to ensure that orders are passed within the extended period, as otherwise the extension becomes meaningless. (e) The outer time limit of 33 months in case of reference to TPO under Section 153, would not refer to draft order, but only to final order and hence, the entire proceedings would have to be concluded within the time limits prescribed, (f) The non-obstante clause would not exclude the operation of Section 153 as a whole. It only implies that irrespective of availability of larger time to conclude the proceedings, final orders are to be passed within one month in line with the scheme of the Act, (g) When no period of limitation is prescribed, orders are to be passed within a reasonable time, which in any case cannot be beyond 3 years. However, when the statute prescribes a particular period within which orders are to be passed, then such period, irrespective of whether it is short or long, shall be applicable.”

, 5939/D/2024, 525/D/2022, 5602/D/2024 + SA 650/Del/2025 & 1503/Del/2021

6.

Considering the extract of the relevant portion from the case of Li & Fung (supra), we now need to consider the relevant dates in all these years for deciding whether the ratio in the case of Roca Bathroom (supra) applies or not. The date-sheet is as under: - Due date for passing Actual date of Name/ITA Assessment year final assessment passing final order u/s 144C(13) assessment order r.w.s. 153 of the Act 1939 2018-19* 30.09.2021 28.07.2022 5939 2021-22 31.12.2023 28.10.2024 525 2017-18* 30.09.2021 24.02.2022 5602 2021-22 31.12.2023 29.10.2024 1503 2016-17 31.12.2019 30.03.2021 Note: - *In both these cases there was extension of time considering TOLA, due to which the limitation as per Section 153(1) of the Act expired on 30.09.2021.

1.

6.1 The dates mentioned in the above table have not been disputed by the Ld. DR. A perusal of the sequence of the dates for all the five assessment years involved clearly shows that the date on which the final assessment order was passed by the Ld. AO is beyond the period of limitation for passing the order u/s 144C(13) r.w.s. 153 of the Act. Accordingly, it is held that the final assessment orders are barred by limitation in all the five cases under consideration, and are thus quashed.

7.

Since the assessees have succeeded on the legal issue of validity of the final assessment order, we do not at this stage, intend to adjudicate the other grounds of appeal. Hence, all other grounds of appeal are left open.

, 5939/D/2024, 525/D/2022, 5602/D/2024 + SA 650/Del/2025 & 1503/Del/2021

8.

Before parting with this issue, it deserves to be observed that the assessees and Revenue, are at liberty to revive the aforesaid appeals in case the Hon’ble Apex Court reverses the law expounded by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Roca Bathroom Products (supra).

1.

1. 5939/D/2024, 525/D/2022, 5602/D/2024 & 1503/D/2021 are allowed. 10. In the case of SA No. 650/Del/2025, connected with (AY 2021-22), since the main appeal has been decided, the stay application has become infructuous and the same is thereby dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.01.2026

More judgments on Section 144C

All 3,699 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →