TPO is required to pass order before the last date of limitation period of 60 days: ITAT

Case Details: Sigma Aldrich Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT - [2022] 141 taxmann.com 431 (Bangalore-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • George George K, Judicial Member & Ms Padmavathy S, Accountant Member
  • Tata Krishna, Adv. for the Appellant.
  • Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee had entered into international transactions with its Associate Enterprises (AEs) and the matter was referred to the TPO for determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP).

The TPO passed orders under section 92CA on 30-1-2014 and 30-1-2015 for assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, respectively. According to the assessee, the TPO ought to have passed orders on or before 29-1-2014 and 29-1-2015 for assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, respectively. However, the orders were passed beyond the prescribed time limit.

ITAT Held

The Tribunal held that from the perusal of section 92CA(3A), it can be seen that the TPO can pass an order at any time before 60 days prior to the due date under section 153 for passing the assessment order.

Accordingly, the due date for passing the assessment order for assessment year 2010-2011 is 31-3-2014 and assessment year 2011-2012 is 31-3-2015. Thus, TPO to pass the transfer pricing orders for should be at any time before 30-1-2014 and 30-1-2015, i.e., on or before 29-1-2014 and 29-1-2015.

In the given case, the TPO had passed the transfer pricing order on 30-1-2014 and 30-1-2015, i.e., beyond the prescribed time limit. Hence, the same is barred by limitation in terms of section 92CA(3A) read with section 153.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Dy. CIT v. Pfizer Healthcare India (P.) Ltd. [2022] 137 taxmann.com 215/444 ITR 636 (Mad.)(para 3)
  • Dy. CIT v. Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd. [2022] 140 taxmann.com 272 (Bang. – Trib.) (para 3)
  • Swiss Re Global Business Solution India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2022] 138 taxmann.com 418 (Bang. – Trib.) (para 3)
  • ECL Finance Ltd. v. ACIT [IT Appeal No. 899 (Mum.) of 2018, dated 22-9-2021] (para 3)
  • Pfizer Healthcare India (P.) Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2021] 124 taxmann.com 536/433 ITR 28 (Mad.) (para 7)
  • Sigma Aldrich Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2021] 123 taxmann.com 398/187 ITD 374 (Bang. – Trib.) (para 13).