sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 All India Federation of Tax Practitioners vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
 Cromption Greaves Limited vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd.
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Royal Airways Ltd.

Tata Communications Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
February, 13th 2014

S. 263: CIT cannot revise the TPO’s transfer pricing order passed u/s 92CA(3). CIT also cannot revise s. 143(3) order because such order is not erroneous if it follows binding order of TPO

The AO made a reference u/s 92CA(1) to the TPO for the computation of arm’s length price (“ALP”) in relation to the international transactions in AY 2005-06 & 2006-07. Pursuant thereto, the TPO passed an order u/s 92CA(3) proposing an adjustment of Rs. 12.19 crore for AY 2005–06 & Rs. 9.18 crore for AY 2006–07. The AO computed the income of the assessee in conformity with the ALP determined by the TPO. Thereafter, the CIT passed an order u/s 263 by which he held that the order passed by the TPO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and that the s. 143(3) assessment order was also erroneous & prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. He set aside the assessment order with a direction to refer the issue of adjustment of arm length value of international transactions to the TPO for reconsideration and to pass an appropriate assessment order in view of the findings from the TPO. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal in which it claimed that the CIT had no jurisdiction over the TPO administratively and, therefore, he could not have revised the order u/s 92CA(3) passed by the TPO and that, therefore, the s. 263 order was without jurisdiction. HELD by the Tribunal allowing the appeal:

The Commissioner cannot exercise revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 on the transfer pricing order passed u/s 92CA(3) by the TPO. As regards the assessment order, it cannot be said to be “erroneous” because the AO is bound by the transfer pricing order u/s 92CA(4) is binding on the AO. Consequently, the CIT’s order is without jurisdiction (Essar Steels Ltd 152 TTJ 265 (Mum) followed)

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Application Management Solutions Application Management System Application Management Software System Application Management Development Application Management Software Development

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions