Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

ITAT Quashes TP Assessment Orders as Consequential Orders Were Passed Beyond Limitation Period

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 5497
Case Name
Vivimed Labs Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2014-15
Advertisement

Vivimed Labs Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)

Transfer Pricing Orders Invalid Because AO Missed Limitation Deadline Under Section 153; ITAT Sets Aside TP Adjustments Because Corporate Guarantee Directions Required Only Effect Giving; Consequential Assessment Orders on AE Advances and Corporate Guarantee Held Time-Barred by ITAT; ITAT Rejects Revenue’s Claim for Extended TP Limitation Because Remand Required Verification.

In Vivimed Labs Limited Vs ACIT, the Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed all three appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2018-19 by holding that the consequential assessment orders passed on 06.12.2024 pursuant to earlier ITAT remand directions were barred by limitation under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act.

The disputes related to transfer pricing adjustments involving interest on advances to Associated Enterprises (AEs), corporate guarantee commission, and interest on outstanding receivables. The assessee challenged the validity of the draft and final assessment orders, contending that the Assessing Officer (AO) passed the consequential orders beyond the prescribed limitation period after earlier ITAT remand orders dated 12.04.2022 and 30.01.2023.

For AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Tribunal had earlier remanded issues relating to Arm’s Length Price (ALP) adjustment on advances made to AEs and corporate guarantee commission. The Tribunal had directed the AO/TPO to verify whether advances to subsidiaries were in the nature of equity investments or working capital advances and to make transfer pricing adjustment only where funds were found to be working capital advances. On the corporate guarantee issue, the Tribunal had already determined that a commission rate of 0.5% on the amount actually utilized would be appropriate.

Paid content

Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 20,925

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.