TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised by the assessee, before referring the transaction to the TPO as it is a basic issue and would prevent loss of man hours on both sides in computing the ALP if it is finally concluded that Chapter X is not applicable. - this exercise could also be done by the Assessing officer before he determines the ALP in exercise of his powers under Section 92C(3) The petitioner shall within two weeks from today submit before the DRP its preliminary objections to Draft Assessment Order and the TPO's order by raising jurisdictional issues. - The DRP shall decide the issue of jurisdiction before considering issue of valuation / quantification raised by the petitioner in its objections filed before the DRP, this of course subject to the additional grounds on jurisdiction being filed by the Petitioner within two weeks from today. The DRP shall decide the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue within two months from the date on which the petitioner files its objections on the question of jurisdiction. - Decided in favor of assessee. - Writ Petition No. 1877 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 29-11-2013 - Mohit S. Shah, C.J. And M. S. Sanklecha,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Harish Salve, Sr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) On 21 August 2008, the petitioner issued 2,89,224 equity shares of a face value of Rs.10/each at the premium of Rs.8591/per share aggregating to a total consideration of Rs.246.38 Crores to its holding company. The petitioner received an amount of Rs.86.93Crores on 21 August 2008 and the balance amount of Rs.159.46 Crores on 5 November 2008 from its holding company; (c) As the issue of the equity shares by the petitioner was to a nonresident entity, the same was done in compliance with the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The Fair Market Value of the said equity shares was determined in accordance with the methodology prescribed under the Capital Issues (Control) Act 1947; (d) On 30 September 2009, the petitioner filed its return of income for Assessment Year 200910 with the respondentrevenue. Along with its return of income, the petitioner also filed Form 3 CEB dated 28 September 2009 by an accountant in accordance with Section 92E. In the said Form, the transaction of issuance of equity shares by the petitioner to its holding company (undisputedly an Associated Enterprise) was declared as an International Transaction and also the Arms Length Price ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as deemed loan by the petitioner and the interest at the rate of 13.50% should not be charged thereon. (h) The petitioner filed its replies on 24 December 2012, 7 January 2013 and 22 January 2013 to the show cause notice issued by the TPO. The petitioner in all its replies contended that Chapter X i.e. Transfer Pricing provisions do not apply to the issue of equity shares. Therefore, it was contended that the notice was completely without jurisdiction and its replies should not be construed as submitting to jurisdiction under Chapter X . Without prejudice, the petitioner contested the show cause notice on merits pointing out that Transfer Pricing provisions do not apply to the issuance of the equity shares. Besides reliance was placed upon the concept of real income and no jurisdiction to tax hypothetical income by recharactering the same as deemed loan; (i) On 28 January 2013, the TPO passed the impugned order holding that the transaction of issuance of equity shares by the petitioner to its holding company is an international transaction covered under Chapter X . In particular, it records the following findings: (i) The issue of equity shares is an International Transact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of taxes) in charging for provision of IT enabled services for FY 200607 331.53 As per information available in the order of the TPO for the FY 200708 ii. Shortfall in charging for sale of call centre business during FY 200708 13443.92 As per the order of the TPO for the FY 200809, as modified by the directions given by DRPI, Mumbai. iii. Shortfall in charging for assignment of call options during FY 200708. 61788.83 As per the order of the TPO for the AY 200809 Less: Provision for tax on shortfall in charging for sale of call centre during FY 200708 @ 22.66% 3046.39 As discussed above Less: Provision for tax on assignment of call option during FY 200708 @ 33.99% 21002.02 As discussed Above Description Amount (Rs. Million) Number/ Amount (Rs.) Remarks Total Net Asset Present Value 51515.87 No. of Equity Shares as on 31032008 957992 ALP Value of each equity Share as on 31032008 5377500 Computation of ALP Description ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as transfer pricing adjustment for the FY 200809, relevant for the AY 200910. (j) Consequent to the order dated 28 January 2013 of the TPO, the Assessing Officer on 4 February 2013 issued notice to the petitioner. The above notice under Section 142 (1) interalia called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why adjustment aggregating to Rs.1397.26 Crores as proposed by TPO should not be made to the total income of the petitioner; (k) On 12 February 2013 and 19 March 2013, the petitioner responded to the show cause notice dated 4 February 2013. The petitioner submitted that the order of the TPO is without jurisdiction as the transfer pricing provisions do not apply to a transaction of issuing equity shares to its holding company. Besides, the transaction of issuing shares cannot be governed by Chapter X as no income arises and /or affected by it. Further, there is no occasion to recharacterize a bonafide transaction of issue of shares as deemed loan under the Act. Thus, it was submitted that the proceeding seeking to apply Chapter X to issue of shares to its holding company is bad in law; (l) On 22 March 2013, the Assessing Officer passed the impugned Draft Assessment Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) there must exist any expense or interest arising from such international transaction, which can impact computation of total income. Upon fulfillment of such conditions precedent and upon application of Chapter X , the only consequence that follows is that the computation of income (expense or interest) shall be computed having regard to ALP. (B) Chapter X relating to avoidance of tax does not purport to create any new or additional head of income over and above those provided in section 14 . If a receipt does not fall under any of the heads of income specified in section 14, the revenue cannot by invoking Chapter X create an additional head of income for the purposes of charging of income tax and computation of total income. (C) The legislative intent that for invocation of Chapter X , income must arise from the international transaction in question (or the expense or interest capable of impacting computation of taxable income must arise) is supported by intrinsic evidence in the provisions of Chapter X as under: ( i) Title of the chapter is special provisions relating to avoidance of tax meaning thereby avoidance of tax on taxable income; (ii) Marginal note to section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad Income from other sources namely: ............... (viib) Where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares. (emphasis supplied) Nowhere in the Act any shortfall in share premium is treated as income. If a case does not fall under section 56(2)(viib) , even share premium in excess of fair market value of shares is not treated as income. It is therefore vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the question of determining the arm's length price by invoking the provisions of Chapter X can arise only for the purpose of assessing the income as defined by the Act. (E) While section 2(24) gives an inclusive definition of income , section 7 provides which income shall be deemed to be received in the previous year in question and section 9 provides which income shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India. None of those provisions provide for any fiction of treating the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought to have received higher share premium and, therefore, the difference should be treated as notional income. (H) The assessee required from its holding company funds to the tune of about Rs.246 crores for its operations in India. On the basis of the fair market value of equity shares calculated in accordance with the formula under the Capital Shares (Control) Act, 1947, the assessee issued 2,89,224 equity shares of Rs.10/each at a premium of Rs.8,519/per share aggregating to total consideration of Rs.246.38 crores to its Holding company which is undisputedly an Associated Enterprise. The petitioner received the said amounts in August/ November 2008. At the relevant time sub clause (xvi) was not yet inserted in Sec.2(24) which, in certain cases, treats share premium in excess of fair market value of shares as income w.e.f. 1 April 2013. Hence the petitioner could have as well received Rs.246.38 crores from its holding company by simply issuing only share or 100 shares. (I) The AO and the TPO have determined the ALP of each share at Rs.53,775/and on that basis they have treated the differential amount of Rs.45,256/( Rs.53,775 Rs.8,519) as the shortfall in the share premi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether an amount received in consideration for surrendering statutory tenancy could be considered as an amount liable to tax under Section 56 i.e. income from other sources. This Court inter alia held as follows:S. It is true that Section 2(24) defines would income . That the definition is an inclusive definition. However, it is well settled that capital receipts do not come within the ambit except to the extent of any capital receipt being expressly sought to be covered by the act of the Parliament as in the case of Section 2(24) (vi) . The Court held that where capital gain is not chargeable for any reason under Section 45 then any amount/income/gain cannot be brought to tax by applying the general understanding of income in the inclusive definition provided under Section 2(24) . In the present case also it was submitted that the issue of shares was on capital account and the same is not taxable under the head Capital Gains, therefore, cannot be brought to tax as income under any other head unless it is specifically defined in the Act. The aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court was upheld by the Apex Court in 273 ITR page 1. (N) One more issue which arises in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the ALP as determined by the TPO; (b) Before the Assessing Officer refers a transaction to the TPO for determination of the ALP under Section 92CA , it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to hear the petitioner before coming to the conclusion that it is necessary and expedient to refer the transaction to the TPO for computation of ALP. This not having been done, the entire reference to TPO is bad. (c) Further while referring the matter to the TPO, the Assessing Officer is also required to consider whether there is any income arising from international transactions so as to make provisions of Chapter X applicable as otherwise, at no point of time, the question whether or not, any income arises from international transactions is subject to any examination by the authorities. (d) The constitution of the DRP is such that one of its members is Director of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing). In terms of Instruction No. 3/2003 dated 20 May 2003 a person of equal rank to the Director of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) who is equal to a member of the DRP is required to approve the order of the TPO. In view of the above, it is submitted that the Writ Petition be entertained and be di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hence, the petitioner should not be relegated to a departmental authority like DRP. (f) It was also submitted that in the affidavit in reply, the respondentrevenue have set out the reasons why according to them income arises on the international transaction being the issue of shares at a premium is covered by Chapter X . In these circumstances, the contentions of the parties be considered on merits and the matter be decided by this Court finally without relegating the petitioner to either the Assessing Officer or the DRP. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Mohan Parasran, learned Solicitor General, in support of the impugned orders passed by the TPO and the Assessing Officer, submitted that this petition be dismissed at the threshold as an efficacious alternative remedy is provided under the Act, the issues raised herein can more appropriately be dealt with by the authorities under the Act. In support, the following submissions were made: (a) The Act provides a complete and self contained machinery for obtaining relief against improper action by the authorities. In this case, the petitioner has already resorted to the alternative remedy by preferring its objections before the DRP. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rits of the issue, the learned Solicitor General in his reply after canvassing the submissions on the questions of alternate remedy and obligation, if any, of the AO or TPO to give any hearing to assessee simply declined to make any submission on merits of the aspect on the ground that since merits would be considered by the DRP, he would not make any submission on merits of the controversy at the hearing of this writ petition. 13. Subsequently, one week after conclusion of the arguments including rejoinder, learned counsel for the respondents submitted written submissions on behalf of the revenue dealing with merits of the controversy and attempting to rebut the petitioner's contentions on merits. As indicated earlier, in the affidavitinreply dated 23 September 2013 also the revenue had dealt with merits of the controversy. 14. When the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in rejoinder that the learned counsel for the revenue had shied away from the merits of the case because the revenue has no case on merits, in the subsequent written submission submitted on behalf of the revenue reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsaction as determined by the AO/TPO under Chapter X, would be part of `notional income' including the total income of an assessee. (para 20). For the purposes of Chapter X, the difference in ALP of an international transaction has to be treated as income, for which no express statutory fiction is required, as contended by the petitioner. (para 40.2(J)) 16. On merits of the issue the revenue made the following submissions : ( a) The issue of equity shares at a premium by the petitioner to its holding company is an international transaction in terms of Section 92B . This was recognized even by the petitioner who along with its return filed the requisite statutory Form 3 CEB, declaring the issue of shares to its holding company as an international transaction. In terms of Section 92B of the Act, all transactions between Associated Enterprises which have bearing on profit, income or loss or assets would be considered to be an international transaction. Therefore, the issue of equity shares would be regarded as international transaction as it would have bearing on the assets of the petitioner. Moreover, Section 92B includes within the meaning of international transactions also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncluding the question of lack of jurisdiction of the TPO. In view of the above, it was submitted by the revenue that this Court should not exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction and follow its decision rendered in Vodafone II case. 20. It is not possible to accept the contention of the revenue that the situation in VodafoneII case was similar to the present case (which may ,for the sake of convenience, be referred to as VodafoneIII case). (a) In VodafoneII, TPO had suo motu exercised his jurisdiction to determine the arm's length price in respect of two unreported international transactions, being (i) the transaction relating to sale of call centre business by the petitioner to Associated Enterprise, and (ii) the assignment of call options under the new framework agreement dated 5 July 2007. The petitioner had contended before the TPO that the transactions did not constitute international transactions. The Division Bench held that there were several issues of fact and law on material aspects which were required to be considered by the authorities under the Act and, therefore, it was not a fit case to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India (para 195/page 195). ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be bound by the terms of the SPA relating to the sale of the call centre business. 158. The next question is in relation to Mr. Salve's third contention whether the relevant transaction i.e. the BTA / sale of the call centre business was in relation to the SPA and/or the terms thereof were determined by the SPA. 164. The fourth question is whether the SPA was prior in point of time to the BTA / the sale of the call centre business. The Division Bench thereafter referred to the contention of the respondents and then held that the contention was not wholly inarguable or improbable. (para 146/page 164165) (h) The Division Bench gave a specific finding that TPO had jurisdiction to determine the arm's length price of the two unreported and unreferred transactions. (para 131/ page 140) (i) The Division Bench held that in the case before it, there was no warrant for exercise of writ jurisdiction because the petitioner had not only an equally but a more efficacious remedy by filing the objections before DRP and that DRP would be entitled to go into all aspects of the matter, factual and legal, whereas in a writ petition a Court may decline interference where there are disputed que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ALP, that the petitioner moved the petition. It its petition, Hindalco had also challenged the validity of the reference made by the Assessing Officer to the TPO on 9 October 2009 as well as approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax on 30 September 2009 for making the reference to TPO. However the above challenge in Court was made after delay of two years. It was in the above circumstances that the Court refused to entertain the petition holding that a comprehensive remedy was available to the petitioner under the Act to challenge the order of the TPO. 23. In view of the above, none of the two decisions being relied upon by the revenue are applicable to the present facts so as to warrant dismissal of the petition at the very out set. Therefore, we would have to independently examine the issue on the facts arising herein whether the petition should be entertained or the petitioner be directed to pursue its remedies under the Act. 24. The contention of the petitioner is that filing of objections with the DRP from the draft assessment order is not an efficacious alternative remedy for the reason that in view of Section 144C(8) , the DRP while passing order under Section 144C(5) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served, inter alia, as under: 82. Mr. Salve submitted that the DRP is entitled under Section 144C only to confirm, reduce or enhance the variation proposed in the draft order. These words according to him, relate and are germane only to quantification of the arms length price. The DRP is therefore not entitled to consider whether or not the transaction are international transactions. We are unable to agree. 83 to 86 87. Nor does it limit the consideration by the DRP to the nature of the report relating to draft assessment order. Subsection( 6) and especially clauses (a) and (b) thereof illustrate the DRP would also be entitled to consider whether or not the TPO was entitled to exercise jurisdiction. 88. This view is not repugnant to the words confirm reduce or enhance in section 144C(8). The suggestion that these three words refer only to the valuation or quantification of the arm's length price is unfounded. A reduction or an enhancement indeed relate to the valuation or quantification. The word 'confirm', however, is much wider. The DRP's power to confirm would include the power not to confirm. It would include the power to annul the variations or any of them. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allenged before the Apex Court. The learned Solicitor General also submitted that the DRP has jurisdiction to consider all issues including the question whether a transfer is an international transaction and the question whether income has arisen or has been affected by the international transaction. 28. Thus it would be open to DRP to consider all issues, including the jurisdictional issue of no income arising and/or affected by the International Transaction. This the DRP can do by issuing final directions under section 144C(5) to the Assessing officer or before issuing final directions, by issuing directions under section 144C(7) to the assessing officer to make a further enquiry and report. 29. Therefore, we have now to consider the issue whether in the face of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, this Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction. It was contended by the revenue that the petition should not be entertained as the petitioner has already availed of the alternative remedy by filing its objections with the DRP on 26 April 2013. Normally, a writ petition would not be entertained if the petitioner has availed of an alternative remedy on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 92(1) reads as under:Computation of income from international transaction having regard to arm's length price. 92(1) Any income arising from the international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm's length price. Explanation:For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the allowance for any expense or interest arising from an international transaction shall also be determined having regard to the arm's length price. (emphasis supplied) (b) The proceedings are in breach of natural justice in as much as no hearing was given to the petitioners by the Assessing Officer before making a reference to the TPO under Section 92CA(1) , which reads as under: Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer. 92CA (1) Where any person, being the assessee, has entered into an international transaction (or specified domestic transaction) in any previous year, and the Assessing Officer considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the Commissioner, refer the computation of the arm's length price in relation to the said international transaction ( or specified domestic transaction) under section 92C to the Transfer Pricing Officer. (emp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial of an income arising and/or being affected by an international transaction on determination of ALP. However when an assessee challenges the above premise, then the issue must be decided. Such an issue must be dealt with at the very threshold that is before determination of ALP. This is so because in case it is held that in the International Transaction there is no income or potential of any income arising and/or being affected on determination of an ALP, the entire exercise of determining the ALP would become academic. In terms of Section 92CA(4) , the Assessing Officer is bound to pass an order in conformity with the ALP determined by the TPO as held by another Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 6 September 2013 in Vodafone II case. However where the Assessing officer is himself determining the ALP in terms of Section 94C(3) then in accordance with Section 94C(4) he would compute the income, having regard to the ALP. In such cases where the Assessing officer decides the ALP himself, it is open to him to consider the issue of income arising and/or being affected or not before commencing the proceedings under Chapter X or at the stage of passing an assessment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 92CA(4) as existing prior to 2007. The preamended Section 92CA(4) provided that the Assessing officer will determine the income having regard to the ALP arrived at by the TPO. The earlier (unamended) Section 92CA(4) reads as under: 92CA (4) On receipt of the order under subsection (3), the Assessing Officer shall proceed to compute the total income of the assessee under subsection (4) of section 92C having regard to the arm's length price determined under subsection (3) by the Transfer Pricing Officer. (emphasis supplied) This was similar to the power which the Assessing officer still enjoys when he determines the ALP himself in terms of Section 92C(4) as pointed out above. Thus at that time the Assessing officer was not bound to complete the assessment in compliance with the ALP determination of the TPO and it was open to the Assessing officer to consider the question of jurisdiction at the time of passing the draft assessment order. However with effect from 2007, Section 92CA(4) has undergone a change and the Assessing officer is bound to pass an order in conformity with the ALP determined by the TPO. Amended Section 92CA(4) reads as under:S. 92CA(4) On receipt of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner seeks to read the requirement of personal hearing in all cases where the Assessing officer seeks to refer an international transaction to the TPO for determination of ALP. It is submitted that even if the hearing is not provided at the stage of reference to TPO under Section 92CA(1) , atleast hearing on the jurisdictional issue is required to be given by TPO when he issues notice to assessee under Section 92CA(2). 39. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in Veer Gems (supra) after referring to the assessee's reply to notice under Section 92CA (2) and after recording prima facie satisfaction that the provisions of Section 92A were attracted, in his notice dated 16 August 2011 the TPO directed the assessee to show cause why its transaction with the associated enterprise should not be subject to transfer price proceeding and profits of the assessee not appropriately modified. The TPO had ,thus, appreciated that application of transfer pricing provisions was going to cause serious civil consequences for the assessee in that case and ,therefore, principles of natural justice were required to be followed. The same should be done by the TPO in all cases. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a and Mauritius. It was contended by the applicant therein that even if income does arise out of the international transaction, the same would not be chargeable to tax in view of the DTAA. Thus it was contended that the exercise of determining the ALP need not be gone into. The AAR held that whether or nor there is liability to pay tax would not affect the operation of Chapter X . In the present case, the issue which arises is whether income arises or potentially arises from the international transaction. The liability to pay tax is an issue which arises after determining the income arising from the transaction. In the case of Castleton (supra), there was no dispute that income does arise from the international transaction. Thus Chapter X became applicable and the entire exercise as provided therein has to be carried out and thereafter the issue of chargeability to tax would arise. In fact in the case before us the petitioner s contention is that no income arises from the International transaction and Chapter X is not applicable. Therefore the above case of Castleton (supra) does not support the revenue. 44. The learned Solicitor General submitted that the action of AO in referri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if the DRP requires any further material, DRP may exercise its powers either under Section 144C(7) or (5) i.e. by directing the Assessing officer to make enquiry into this aspect of the matter and report or alternatively decide it itself and give final directions to the assessing officer. The process before the DRP is a continuation of the assessment proceedings as only thereafter would a final appealable assessment order be passed. Till date there is no appealable assessment order. The proceeding before the DRP is not an appeal proceeding but a correcting mechanism in the nature of a second look at the proposed assessment order by high functionaries of the revenue keeping in mind the interest of the assesee. It is a continuation of the Assessment proceedings till such time a final order of assessment which is appealable is passed by the Assessing Officer. This also finds support from Section 144C(6) which enables the DRP to collect evidence or cause any enquiry to be made before giving directions to the Assessing Officer under Section 144C(5) . The DRP procedure can only be initiated by an assessee objecting to the draft assessment order. This would enable correction in the propos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt with its preliminary objection. The TPO does not deal with the petitioner s objection about applicability of Chapter X , on the ground that it would be dealt with by the Assessing officer. Thereafter when the petitioner raises the same issue before the Assessing Officer he does not deal with the same on the ground that he is bound to complete the assessment in terms of the ALP determined by the TPO. We hope the revenue will be more sensitive to the just demands of the assessee and not treat the assessee as an adversary who has to be taxed, no matter what. 51. Mr.Harish Salve, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has made a serious grievance that when the assessee is bringing in the country Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) by way of issue of share capital by an Indian subsidiary company to its foreign holding company, such capital receipts are sought to be taxed, even when the Incometax Act does not contain any provision for such chargeability. Even with effect from 1 April 2013, it is only when the share issuing company falling under Section 56 receives share premium in excess of fair market value of such shares, that such excess premium would be chargeable to incometax. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above circumstances, we dispose of the present petition with the following directions: ( A) The petitioner shall within two weeks from today submit before the DRP its preliminary objections to Draft Assessment Order and the TPO's order by raising jurisdictional issues. (B) The DRP shall decide the issue of jurisdiction before considering issue of valuation / quantification raised by the petitioner in its objections filed before the DRP, this of course subject to the additional grounds on jurisdiction being filed by the Petitioner within two weeks from today. The DRP shall decide the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue within two months from the date on which the petitioner files its objections on the question of jurisdiction. (C) We make it clear that since the question of jurisdiction for applicability of Chapter X for the Assessment Year 2009-10 is raised independently of the challenge to the orders of the TPO and the AO for the Assessment Year 200809, the DRP shall decide the preliminary issue about applicability of Chapter X to the assessment for the Assessment Year 200910, without awaiting for decision on the dispute relating to the Assessment Year 2008-09. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
