| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 2009 2010 SLD 2009 (2010) 320 ITR 565 (2010) 191 TAXMAN 234 |
Delhi High Court
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 14079 OF 2009, DECEMBER 22, 2009
A.K. SIKRI AND, J.R. MIDHA, JJ.
Piyush Kaushik for the Petitioner. N.P. Sahni, Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal and P.C. Yadav for the
Respondent.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 14079 OF 2009, DECEMBER 22, 2009
A.K. SIKRI AND, J.R. MIDHA, JJ.
Piyush Kaushik for the Petitioner. N.P. Sahni, Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal and P.C. Yadav for the
Respondent.
Messe Dusseldorf India (P.) Ltd.
v.
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Transfer Pricing Officer
Law:
Section:
Section 92CA, read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer pricing - Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer - Assessee filed writ petition challenging order passed by Transfer Pricing Officer determining arm's length price (ALP) on ground that no proper opportunity was given to it and it was not confronted with formula ultimately adopted by Transfer Pricing Officer while fixing ALP - Entries made in impugned order demonstrated that assessee was called by Transfer Pricing Officer from time-to-time; it was asked to furnish certain information and make submission in that behalf, and impugned order was passed thereafter - Whether on facts, it could be treated as a case where opportunity of hearing was not afforded to assessee before passing an order - Held, no - Whether further, since after draft order was framed by Assessing Officer, assessee had remedy to approach Dispute Resolution Panel as provided under section 144C and to raise all possible objections, writ petition was to be dismissed - Held, yes FACTS The assessee filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(3) determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in respect of international transaction for 'representation services'. On the basis of that order, the Assessing Officer had prepared a draft assessment order under section 144C proposing to incorporate the addition made by the Transfer Pricing Officer in the assessment order in the computation of the ALP of 'representation services' transaction. The grievance of the assessee was that no proper opportunity was given to it and it was not confronted with the formula ultimately adopted by the TPO while fixing the ALP. HELD The entries made in the impugned order demonstrated that the assessee was called by the TPO from time-to-time and was asked to furnish certain information and to make submission in that behalf. The impugned order had been passed thereafter. Therefore, it could not be treated to be a case where opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the assessee before passing an order. So far as the submission of the assessee that it was not confronted with the basis which theβ¦
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492