Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Honda Trading Corporation. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : Income tax (Appeal) No. 1132 of 2015
Date of Judgement/Order : 15/09/2015
Related Assessment Year : 2010-11
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Brief of the Case

ITAT Delhi held In the case of Honda Trading Corporation. vs, DCIT that despite the use of the word `may’, the time limit for passing the order by the TPO is mandatory, as in the otherwise situation of the TPO having been allowed more time by implication, say of three months or more, could at that time have frustrated the provisions of section 153 for the passing of the assessment order by the AO. Thus we have no hesitation in holding that the use of the word `may’ in sub-section (3A) of section 92CA is to be construed as `shall’, thereby making this time limit as mandatory and not directory. As such, it is held that the TPO is bound by the given time limit for passing of his order. When an order is passed without jurisdiction or beyond the permissible time, it is considered as null and void. The effect of passing a null and void order is that it is considered as non est, meaning thereby, that it entails all the consequences of not having been passed at all and is ignored for all practical purposes.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, Honda Trading Corporation, Japan, was established in Japan on 21.3.1972 to act as Trading Corporation for developing import/export of overseas/domestic products through international distribution networks of Honda Motor Co. Ltd. The assessee is basically engaged in supplying parts for motorcycle, automobile, power equipments, automotive equipments and machinery, non-ferrous metals, steel, plastic and warehouse operations

The assessee filed its return of income on 13.10.2010. Five international transactions were reported, being payment of Technical supervision fees, Sale of raw material and Sale of fixed assets to Honda Siel Cars India Ltd.; payment of Technical supervision fees to Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Centre Pvt. Ltd.; and payment of Technical supervision fees to Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. All these five international transactions are with three Indian group companies. The AO made reference dated 22.3.2013 to the TPO for determining the arm’s length price (ALP) of the above referred international transactions.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031