| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 5019 (Ind-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 92BA(1)
Since section 92BA(1) itself stood omitted at the time when order was passed by CIT under section 263, therefore, assessment order could not be held as erroneous and prejudicial on the ground of no reference made by AO to TPO in terms of section 92BA(1).
|
Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - Omission of provision forming the basis of revisionery order -
CIT held assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground of AO not having referred the case to verify whether specified domestic transactions were at arm's length price or not. Held: Assessee had entered into 'specified domestic transactions' but not in international transactions. The, transactions were governed by section 92BA(1) omitted with effect from 1-4-2017. Admittedly, assessment order has been revised purely on the basis that AO had not referred to determine ALP to TPO. Impact of omission of this provision would be that it had to be construed that such provision was never on the statute book and, therefore, assessment order could not be held as erroneous and prejudicial.
Relied:General Finance Co. & Anr. v. Asstt. CIT (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC) : 2002 TaxPub(DT) 1644 (SC), Texport Overseas (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, Circle (1) (1), Bengaluru. in (IT(TP)A No. 1722/Bang/2017, dt. 22-12-2017)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2014-15
IN THE ITAT, INDORE BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|