9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 804 - AT - Income TaxJurisdiction power u/s 263 by CIT(A) - as per CIT AO had completed the assessment without examining/referring some transactions to the Transfer Pricing Officer to determine whether these investments were made at arm s length - Held that - The amount representing 2118.84 is towards investment in share capital of the subsidiaries outside India as the transactions are not in the nature of transactions referred to section 92-B and the transfer pricing provisions are not applicable as there is no income. Accordingly, the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 set aside and that of the AO is restored and the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed.
Issues:
1. Whether the order passed by the AO under section 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 2. Whether the investments made by the assessee company in its subsidiaries outside India are International Transactions under section 94B of the Income-tax Act. 3. Whether the CIT was justified in setting aside the assessment and directing the AO to refer the transactions to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92C for determining the arm's length price. 4. Whether the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 5. Whether the transactions involving capital investments made by the company qualify as international transactions under Chapter X of the Income-tax Act. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT-III, Hyderabad, challenging the assessment year 2007-08. The CIT found the AO's order under section 143(3) to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests. The CIT observed that the assessee had invested a significant amount in its subsidiaries outside India, leading to the initiation of proceedings under section 263. 2. The CIT determined that the investments made by the assessee company in its subsidiaries outside India constituted International Transactions under section 94B of the Income-tax Act. The CIT highlighted that the required report in Form No. 3CEB, as mandated under section 92E, was not submitted with the return of income. The AO had completed the assessment without referring these transactions to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to ascertain if the investments were at arm's length. 3. The CIT set aside the assessment and directed the AO to refer the transactions to the TPO under section 92C for determining the arm's length price. The assessee contended that the transactions were not covered under section 92B and that the arm's length price could not be determined as per section 92C. However, the CIT deemed the explanation unacceptable, emphasizing the need for verification on the arm's length nature of the transactions. 4. The assessee raised multiple grounds of appeal, challenging the CIT's decision on various aspects, including the applicability of sections 92E, 92B, and 92C. The CIT's direction to refer the transactions to the TPO was also contested. The assessee argued that the investments were capital in nature and did not constitute international transactions under Chapter X of the Income-tax Act. 5. After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found that the investments made by the assessee were not transactions falling under section 92-B and that transfer pricing provisions were not applicable due to the absence of income. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order under section 263 and restored the AO's order, allowing the grounds raised by the assessee. This detailed analysis highlights the key issues and the Tribunal's decision on each aspect of the legal judgment.
|
