Case Law Details
Frost & Sullivan (India) Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that as per section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, TPO can pass the order at any time before 60 days prior to the date on which period of limitation referred u/s 153 expires. TPO order passed after the prescribed time limit is non-est and barred by limitation.
Facts- Assessee, vide the present appeal, has challenged the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 2,18,55,896/-. Assessee mainly challenges that time limit for passing the assessment order u/s.153 is barred by limitation on the ground that ld. TPO’s order itself is barred by limitation.
Conclusion- The interpretation of Section 92CA (3) r.w.s. 153 has been dealt by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that as per Section 92CA (3A), the order has to be passed before the expiry of 60 days prior to the date on which the period of limitation under Section 153 expires. As per 92CA(4), the assessing officer has to pass an order in conformity with the order of the TPO.
Held that the time limit for passing the ld. TPO order in the case of the assessee was 29/01/2014 as noted above which is not in dispute. Since the ld. TPO order has been passed on 30/01/2014 which is clearly barred by limitation by one day by virtue of time limit provided u/s.92CA (3) and consequently, the same has to be treated as bad in law and the same is hereby quashed. Thus, in such a situation, if there is no TPO order, consequently the entire transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the ld. TPO in international transaction becomes non-est and to be quashed and being barred by limitation.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
