“eligible assessee”

M/S. Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd (Sucessor in Interest for Pentair Valves and Controls Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/CIT/Dy/ACIT/NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, ITA number 2126/M/2022 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 012. As soon as the transfer pricing assessment order becomes invalid, the assessee fails to qualify as an eligible assessee under section 144C (15) of the act and the time limit for passing of the final assessment order also get reduced. On this ground also

M/S. Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd (Sucessor in Interest for Pentair Valves and Controls Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/CIT/Dy/ACIT/NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, ITA number 2126/M/2022 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 012. As soon as the transfer pricing assessment order becomes invalid, the assessee fails to qualify as an eligible assessee under section 144C (15) of the act and the time limit for passing of the final assessment order also get reduced. On this ground also

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi/Local Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Is Asstt, CIT- CC-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Mahindra & Mahindra Income Tax Officer, National E- Limited Assessment Centre, Delhi Corporate Taxation, Local Jurisdictional Assessing P.K.Kurne Chowk, Vs. Worli, Officer Mumbai-400 018 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3025E Assessee By : Shri H.P. Mahajani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2023

date and requires to be quashed. He further stated that as the transfer pricing order is beyond the due date, assessee is not an eligible assessee and therefore, the extended time limit of 12 months is also not available to the learned Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the assessment order passed ... transfer pricing order. The assessee is also a resident company. Therefore, according to section 144C(15)(b) of the Act, assessee is not an ‘eligible assessee’ and therefore, extended the time limit of 12 months as prescribed under Section 153(4) of the Act is also not available

Frost & Sullivan (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

entire proceedings initiated u/s 144C is bad in law, because in absence of valid TPO order, the assessee ceases to be an eligible assessee and therefore the provisions of section 144C are not applicable to the assessee. Therefore, the ld. AO was required to complete the assessment within

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Frost and Sullivan (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

entire proceedings initiated u/s 144C is bad in law, because in absence of valid TPO order, the assessee ceases to be an eligible assessee and therefore the provisions of section 144C are not applicable to the assessee. Therefore, the ld. AO was required to complete the assessment within

Accenture Solutions P Ltd (Asol), Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & the Dy CIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhaccenture Solutions Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (‘Asol’) Assistant Commissioner Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Of Income Tax/Income- Complex, Phirojshah Tax Officer, National Nagar, Vikhroli West, Facelless Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Centre, Delhi Mumbai – 400079 The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(1) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach3235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/ Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath Date Of Hearing 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ao (National Assessment Centre) Mumbai- 2, Dated 18.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 As Per The Direction Of The Drp Issued U/S 144C (5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo), Based On The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2888,33,73,016 Against A Total Income Of Rs.2179,39,30,620 As Reported By The Appellant In Its Revised Return Of Income & Determining A Demand Of Rs.2186,98,55,847 Payable By The Appellant.

Counsel has mentioned the provisions of Sec. 144C(15) of the Act pertaining to the eligible assesse the same is reproduced as under: “(b) “eligible assessee” means – (i) Any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub- section(1) arises as a consequence of the order ... After referring the aforesaid provisions the ld. Counsel contended that since the order of the TPO was barred by limitation, therefore, there was no eligible assessee in the case of the assessee in terms of provisions of subsection (15) to Sec. 144C of the Act. 8. In this regard

Abbott India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Chaudhary, Jm Ita No. 2032/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year2009-10)

panel. vii The objections in form number 35A was also filed by Abbott India Ltd however the assessee himself mentioned the name of the eligible assessee as Solvay Pharma India Ltd (now merged with Abbott India Ltd). Assessment year 2009 – 10 viii On 17 July 2013 assessee informed the learned ... A.Ys. 08-09 & 09-10 xiii Form number 35A being objections to the draft order was also stating that name and address of the eligible assessee as Solvay Pharma India Ltd (now merged with Abbott India Ltd. The form number 35 was also verified by the director of Abbott India

Abbott India Ltd.(Solvay Pharma India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. RG.7(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Chaudhary, Jm Ita No. 2032/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year2009-10)

panel. vii The objections in form number 35A was also filed by Abbott India Ltd however the assessee himself mentioned the name of the eligible assessee as Solvay Pharma India Ltd (now merged with Abbott India Ltd). Assessment year 2009 – 10 viii On 17 July 2013 assessee informed the learned ... A.Ys. 08-09 & 09-10 xiii Form number 35A being objections to the draft order was also stating that name and address of the eligible assessee as Solvay Pharma India Ltd (now merged with Abbott India Ltd. The form number 35 was also verified by the director of Abbott India

M/S. Brightstar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

first instance, forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment (hereafter in this section referred to as the draft order) to the eligible assessee if he proposes to make, on or after the 1st day of October, 2009, any variation in the income or loss returned which is prejudicial ... draft assessment order dated 29.12.2016 and had proposed variation to the return filed by the assessee, thereby determining the assessee to be an eligible assessee. It is observed that the A.O. has issued the draft assessment order along with the notice of demand u/s. 156 and also notice

Eclinical Works India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singheclinical Works India Pvt. Vs. Dcit-9(2)(2) Ltd., A 701 To 705, Aaykar Bhavan, Boomerang Chandivali M.K. Road, Farm Road, Chandivali Mumbai – 400 020 Studio, Mumbai – 400 072 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce6639F Appellant .. Respondent

first instance, forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment (hereafter in this section referred to as the draft order) to the eligible assessee if he proposes to make, on or after the 1st day of October, 2009, any variation which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee ... receipt of the draft order, the eligible assessee shall, within thirty days of the receipt by him of the draft order,- (a) file his acceptance of the variations to the Assessing Officer; or (b) file his objections, if any, to such variation with,-- (i) the Dispute Resolution Panel

ACIT, (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

entire proceedings initiated u/s 144C is bad in law, because in absence of valid TPO order, the assessee ceases to be an eligible assessee and therefore the provisions of section 144C are not applicable to the assessee. Therefore, the ld. AO was required to complete the assessment within ... limitation, then the draft assessment order could not have been passed in the case of assessee because assessee would no longer be treated as eligible assessee. This issue has been dealt in detail by the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Relevant portion of which

Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu) - 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

entire proceedings initiated u/s 144C is bad in law, because in absence of valid TPO order, the assessee ceases to be an eligible assessee and therefore the provisions of section 144C are not applicable to the assessee. Therefore, the ld. AO was required to complete the assessment within ... limitation, then the draft assessment order could not have been passed in the case of assessee because assessee would no longer be treated as eligible assessee. This issue has been dealt in detail by the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Relevant portion of which

Tata Aig General Insurance Comapany Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Thereafter, coming to the next legal issue, he drew our attention to Section 144C(15)(b) of the Act wherein the definition of ‘eligible assessee’ is given which is reproduced as under: - “For the purposes of this section- (a) ……… (b) ‘eligible assessee’ means, - (i) any person in whose case ... case, it is undisputed that clause (ii) (supra) is not applicable; and only clause (i) (supra) was attracted in order to be a ‘eligible assessee’ for the purpose of Section 144C of the Act. However, since in this case, the TPO order u/s 92CA

Dhl Logistics P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdhl Logistics Private Vs. National E-Assessment Limited, 201A, Silver Centre Utopia, Cardinal Gracias Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Road, Chakala, Assistant Commissioner Andheri (East) Of Income Tax/Income Mumbai – 400099 Tax Officer, National E- Assessment Centre Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm6824H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/ Darshan Dalal Respondent By : Jayant B Jhaveri Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Drp-1), Mumbai, Dated 15.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Order Dated 1 November 2019 Passed By The Learned Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing)-1(2)(2), Mumbai ('Ld. Tpo) Under Section 92Ca Of The Act Is Beyond The Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 92Ca(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act), Thus Making The Transfer Pricing Order & Resultant Final Assessment Order Dated 30 April 2021 Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Null & Void & Liable To Be Quashed. The Following Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Ground 1 Above.

taken up for adjudication. As per additional ground the order of the TPO is barred by limitation, therefore, the assessee does not become eligible assessee u/s 144C of the Act, therefore, the draft assessment order dated 07.12.2019 and the final assessment order passed by the A.O on 30.04.2021 were barred ... Counsel has mentioned the provisions of Sec. 144C(15) of the Act pertaining to the eligible assesse the same is reproduced as under: “(b) “eligible assessee” means – (i) Any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub- section(1) arises as a consequence of the order

Asus India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-9(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.7147/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Asus India Private Ito Ward- 9(1) (4), Limited. Mumbai. 402, Supreme Chamber, बनाम/ Veera Desai Road, Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai-400 053. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aajca 6450C (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Dhanesh Bafna, Pratik Shah, Ms. Tejal Saraf, Ms. Riddhi M Maru Shri Anoop Hiwase (Sr. Dr) प्रत्यथी की ओरसे/Respondent By : सुनवधई की तधरीख/ 21.03.2023 : Date Of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 14.06.2023 : Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi: 1) This Appeal Is Filed By Asus India Private Limited [Assessee/ Appellant] Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 144C (13) R.W.S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 On 26Th October, 2017 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2 I.T.A. No. 7147/Mum/2017 Asus India Private Limited Vs. Ito

prescribed time. As the foundation of the Ld. Assessing Officer’s draft assessment order incorporating the order of the TPO considering the assessee as ‘eligible assessee’ u/s 144C(15), it also fails. The moment the assessee is ceases to be a ‘eligible assessee’, the extended time 6 I.T.A. No. 7147/Mum/2017 ... variation to the income of the assessee pursuance to the reference made the Ld. TPO. Accordingly, assessee does not qualify to be an eligible assessee u/s 144C(15)(b). Thus, the moment the order of the TPO is quashed the assessee ceases to be an ‘eligible assessee’. Therefore, in that

Johnson &Johnson P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT/ACIT/Jt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

No.1740/MUM/2021, 2779, 3015/MUM/2016, CO 33/MUM/2017 Johnson & Johnson Private Ltd A.Y. 2011-12, 2016-17 Indian companies to be an "eligible assessee" under the provisions of Section 144C of the Act is not met and hence, the order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) is also barred ... claim of the assessee that as the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer is invalid, the assessee cannot be said to be an 'eligible assessee' in terms of explanation to section 144C of the Act and hence, the final assessment order passed on 26 February 2016 is barred by limitation

ACIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd.(Frmerly Known As Johnson & Johnson Ltd.), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

No.1740/MUM/2021, 2779, 3015/MUM/2016, CO 33/MUM/2017 Johnson & Johnson Private Ltd A.Y. 2011-12, 2016-17 Indian companies to be an "eligible assessee" under the provisions of Section 144C of the Act is not met and hence, the order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) is also barred ... claim of the assessee that as the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer is invalid, the assessee cannot be said to be an 'eligible assessee' in terms of explanation to section 144C of the Act and hence, the final assessment order passed on 26 February 2016 is barred by limitation