Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1312 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
TP Adjustment - AO made a reference to TPO u/s 92CA to determine arms length price as the assessee had entered into specified domestic transaction and on the ground it was covered u/s 92BA - contention for revenue that tribunal was not justified in arriving at a conclusion that Clause (i) of section 92BA which had been omitted w.e.f. 01.04.2017 would be applicable retrospectively by presuming the retrospectivity, particularly when the statue itself explicitly stated it to be prospective in nature - HELD THAT:- On perusal of records in general and order passed by tribunal in particular it is clearly noticeable that Clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act came to be omitted w.e.f. 01.04.2019 by Finance Act, 2014. As to whether omission would save the acts is an issue which is no more res intigra in the light of authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India [2000 (2) TMI 823 - SUPREME COURT] whereunder Apex Court has examined the effect of repeal of a statute vis-a-vis deletion/addition of a provision in an enactment and its effect thereof.
In the matter of General Finance Co. v. ACIT [2002 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] which judgment has also been taken note of by the tribunal while repelling the contention raised by revenue with regard to retrospectivity of section 92BA(i) of the Act. Thus, when clause (i) of Section 92BA having been omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 01.07.2017 from the Statute the resultant effect is that it had never been passed and to be considered as a law never been existed. Hence, decision taken by the Assessing Officer under the effect of section 92BI and reference made to the order of Transfer Pricing Officer-TPO under section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law.
It is for this precise reason, tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. [2000 (2) TMI 823 - SUPREME COURT]. We are of the considered view that first substantial question of law raised in the appeal by the revenue in respective appeal memorandum could not arise for consideration particularly when the said issue being no more res integra.
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Whether there was no exempted income and as such disallowance could not have been made even though said provision was rightly invoked by AO, and as such setting aside the disallowance is erroneous? - HELD THAT:- We find from the order of the Tribunal that issue relating to the deletion of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer has been remitted back to the Assessing Officer which finding is based on factual aspects which would not call for interference by us, that too, by formulating substantial question of law. The Assessing Officer has to undertake the exercise of factual determination. As such, without expressing any opinion on merits with regard to question No. 2 formulated by the revenue in the respective appeals