Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 939 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - transactions entered with the related parties whose value at the most could be determined at arm's length, are the transactions with related parties - Whether domestic transaction of purchase from related party was not required to be considered as a specified domestic transaction under section 92BA? - whether in the absence of sub-clause (i) of section 92BA in the provision can still be transaction of the assessee regarding purchase made from the related party deserves to be referred to the TPO? - HELD THAT:- As decided in judgment of Pr. CIT Vs. Texport Overseas P. Ltd. [2019 (12) TMI 1312 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] that there was a domestic transaction which fall within the definition of "specified domestic transaction" with help of section 92BA(i). A reference was made to the TPO and objections were filed before the DRP also. But ultimately when the assessment order was passed under section 144(3) of the Act, read with section 143(3) of the Act, this clause has been omitted from the Act. In other words, the assessment order was passed on 30.6.2017, and this clause, on the strength of which this reference was made to the TPO, stand omitted w.e.f. 1.4.2017. The case of the assessee was that after April, 2017 this proceeding would lapse, which was not accepted by the AO as well as TPO, but the Tribunal accepted the stand of the assessee. When the ld. Commissioner issued a show cause notice under section 263 and ultimately passed impugned order; by that time the alleged domestic transaction of purchase from related party was not required to be considered as a specified domestic transaction under section 92BA of the Act. It has been omitted, and therefore, no proceedings under section 263 should have been undertaken by the ld. Commissioner. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|