TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued by the AO and the initiation of penalty proceedings are hereby set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. - W.P.(C) 4260/2015 & W.P.(C) 4261/2015 - - - Dated:- 17-5-2017 - S. MURALIDHAR CHANDER SHEKHAR JJ. Petitioner Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mayank Nagi Mr. Tarun Singh, Advocates Respondent Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing Counsel O R D E R Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. The challenge in these writ petitions is to the Assessment Orders passed by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) on 31st March, 2015 for the Assessment Year ( AY ) 2007-08 (subject matter of challenge in WP (C) No. 4261/2015) and AY 2008-2009 (subject-matter of challen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 14th January 2013, in both the appeals pertaining to the two AYs, the ITAT observed that neither the Petitioner nor the TPO had taken into consideration appropriate comparables and, therefore, the determination of arms length price ( ALP ) was not justifiable. While setting aside the order of the DRP, the ITAT remanded the matters to the AO for undertaking a transfer pricing study afresh and framing an assessment in accordance with law. 7. Following the above order of the ITAT, fresh notices were sent on 2nd August, 2013 by the TPO to the Petitioner under Section 92CA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ). 8. Two separate orders were passed by the TPO on 30th January, 2015 proposing an upward adjustment to the total incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court by the dismissal of the Revenue's SLP (C) [CC No. 16694/2013] on 27th September, 2013. 13. In Vijay Television (P) Ltd. v. Dispute Resolution Panel [2014] 369 ITR 113 (Mad.), a similar question arose. There, the Revenue sought to rectify a mistake by issuing a corrigendum after the final assessment order was passed. Consequently, not only the final assessment order but also the corrigendum issued thereafter was challenged. Following the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Zuari Cement Ltd. v. ACIT (supra) and a number of other decisions, the Madras High Court in Vijay Television (P) Ltd. v. Dispute Resolution Panel (supra) quashe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
