TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- TPO has passed the order, dated 30.10.2018, pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16, wherein, certain observations have been made with regard to the Arms Length Price. Whether the said adjustment suggestion made in the order dated 30.10.2018 is sustainable on facts can very well be examined by the DRP, which has been conferred with sufficient jurisdiction in terms of Section 144-C of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, the appellant should not bypass the said remedy. That apart, we note that, as against the order passed by the Tribunal, which was referred to by the assessee before the TPO, which according to the assessee covers the issue, the Revenue has filed a Tax Case Appeal before this Court and the said appeal has been enter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is affirmed, giving liberty to the appellant/assessee to approach the DRP. - W.A.No.1963 of 2021 And C.M.P.Nos.12745 & 12748 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 16-8-2021 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup For the Appellant : Mr.N.V.Balaji For the Respondents : Mr.Hema Muralikrishnan Senior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. This Writ Appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 02.06.2021 made in W.P.No.30606 of 2018. 2.The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent, who is the Transfer Pricing Officer ( TPO for brevity), who passed the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id order and has virtually exercised his powers and failed to follow the decision of the higher authorities, which is binding on the TPO. 4.We are of the considered view that the TPO has passed the order, dated 30.10.2018, pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16, wherein, certain observations have been made with regard to the Arms Length Price. Whether the said adjustment suggestion made in the order dated 30.10.2018 is sustainable on facts can very well be examined by the DRP, which has been conferred with sufficient jurisdiction in terms of Section 144-C of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, the appellant should not bypass the said remedy. That apart, we note that, as against the order passed by the Tribunal, which was referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
