The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer released the order without any authentication, rendering it inappropriate in the eyes of the law and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal found this view fortified by a coordinate bench decision on similar grounds concerning unauthenticated or improperly signed assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the Bright Line Test (BLT) for making transfer pricing adjustments related to AMP expenditure is not legally sustainable, as it has been consistently rejected by the Jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court in various precedents, including the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also restored certain corporate tax grounds to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the date of uploading the DRP's directions on the ITBA portal, along with a DIN, is the date of communication to the Assessing Officer (AO). Consequently, the limitation period for passing the final assessment order starts from this date. As the final assessment orders were passed after the expiry of this limitation period, they were considered illegal and void.

The Tribunal held that the date of uploading of DRP directions in the ITBA portal, along with a DIN, is the date of communication to the Assessing Officer (AO). The limitation period for the AO to pass the final assessment order begins from this date. Consequently, if the assessment order is passed beyond this period, it is barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that a one-time performance bonus paid to a Director/Chief Scientific Officer for patent licensing was not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) as it was not directly related to scientific research. However, regular remuneration for scientific research services was eligible. For other assessment years, the Tribunal allowed the deletion of ESOP expenditure disallowances based on previous consistent rulings and dismissed claims for weighted deduction on certain R&D expenditures.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's assumption of purchases and sales transactions between the assessee and M/s Kritvi Enterprises was factually incorrect, as no such transactions were found in the assessee's records. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's order for an identical issue in a previous assessment year.

The Tribunal noted that there were issues with the jurisdiction and notices issued. Given that the assessee could not furnish books of account before the lower authorities, and the Department had no objection, the matter was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal found both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte and the CIT(A) failed to decide all appeal grounds on merits. Consequently, the issue was restored to the AO for a de-novo assessment, ensuring an opportunity of being heard for the assessee.