TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(2), New Delhi [ 2017 (5) TMI 991 - DELHI HIGH COURT] . There, the Court categorically held that the mandatory requirements under Section 144C (1) of the Act had to be met even where the TPO had passed the order in the second round on remand by the ITAT. Once there is a clear order of setting aside of an assessment order with the requirement of the AO/TPO to undertake a fresh exercise of determining the arm s length price, the failure to pass a draft assessment order, would violate Section 144C (1) of the Act result. This is not a curable defect in terms of Section 292B of the Act as held by this Court in its decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-2, New Delhi v. Citi Financial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) read with Section 144C of the Act proposing addition of ₹ 633,26,11,353/- in terms of the additions recommended by the TPO. The Assessee then went before the Dispute Resolution Panel ( DRP ) which by the order dated 28th September 2012 more or less affirmed the additions recommended by the TPO. 5. The final assessment order was thereafter passed by the AO on 30th November 2012 under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144C of the Act. A total addition of ₹ 610,45,63,770/- was made to the returned income of the Assessee and its total income was assessed at ₹ 1520,44,16,770/-. 6. By the order dated 30th August 2013, the Assessee s appeal was allowed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ). The matter concerning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal No. 542 of 2017 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara-2 v. C-Sam (India) Pvt. Ltd.) 10. By a separate order passed today in W.P. (C) Nos. 3399/2016, 3429/2016 and 3431/2016 (JCB India Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax), the Court followed its decision in Turner International W.P.(C) 3629/2017 Page 4 of 4 (supra) and quashed the final assessment order which was challenged in those cases. 11. Once there is a clear order of setting aside of an assessment order with the requirement of the AO/TPO to undertake a fresh exercise of determining the arm s length price, the failure to pass a draft assessment order, would violate Section 144C (1) of the Act result. This is not a curable defect in terms of Section 292B of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
