WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 4521/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 September 2025AY 2007-08Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)10 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the ITAT's remand order was dated 31/08/2012. As per Section 153(2A) of the Income Tax Act, a fresh assessment order should have been passed by 31/03/2014 (within one year from the end of the financial year of the ITAT order). Since the final assessment order was passed on 26/05/2014, it was beyond the statutory time limit and was therefore quashed.

What were the facts?

An initial assessment order for AY 2007-08 resulted in a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 3,54,99,029/-. The ITAT had previously remanded the case to the DRP for re-computation of Arm's Length Price by applying a 'turnover filter', but the DRP rejected this filter. Consequently, the AO passed a final assessment order on 26/05/2014, upholding the adjustment, which the assessee challenged, primarily on grounds of being time-barred.

What were the issues?

Whether the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 26/05/2014 was barred by limitation under Section 153(2A) of the Income Tax Act, given the previous ITAT remand order dated 31/08/2012.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C,Section 144C(5),Section 254,Section 153(2A),Section 250,Section 263,Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Hearing: 05/08/2025Pronounced: 12/09/2025

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2007-08 challenging the Final Assessment Order

passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -12(1)-New Delhi

dated 26/05/2014 Order u/s 143(3) r.w. Section 144C(5)/254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short).

2.

The Ground of appeal of the Assessee are as under:-

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") is bad in law and void ab-initio.

2

2.

The Ld. AO/Ld. Transfer Pricing O

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 144C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →