DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

ITA 431/JPR/2022Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2023AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)44 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO under Section 92CA was invalid and bad in law due to the omission of clause (i) of Section 92BA by the Finance Act, 2017, without a saving clause. Consequently, the consequential orders and additions were not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee company was a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) formed for an irrigation project. During the assessment year 2014-15, the Assessing Officer (AO) referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA. The TPO made an adjustment based on a retention percentage, leading to an addition by the AO.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reference made to the TPO under Section 92CA after the omission of Section 92BA(i) without a saving clause. The secondary issue involved the determination of the arm's length price and the comparability of certain agreements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92CA,Section 92BA

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, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 394/JP/2022

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &, Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 26/04/2023Pronounced: 22/05/2023

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 394/JP/2022
ITA No. 431/JP/2022

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

PER BENCH : These two cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are directed agains

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 92CA

All 3,978 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92CA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →