9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es in the area of medical transcription to its parent company in the United States of America and other Associated Enterprises ('AEs'). 3. The Assessee filed its return of income for the AY in question on 31st October 2007. The return was picked up for scrutiny under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). As the Assessee had entered into international transactions with its AEs, the Assessing Officer (AO) referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of their Arm's Length Price ('ALP'). The TPO by order dated 25th October, 2010 proposed an adjustment of Rs. 1,54,72,764/- on the basis of which a draft assessment order was prepared by the AO under Section 144-C of the Act on 28th December, 2010. Subsequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limited) (2017) 397 ITR 681 (Del) as well as decision of this Court in Spice Infotainment v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 247 CTR (Del) 500 [which was affirmed by the Supreme Court by its order dated 2nd November 2017 in C.A. 285 of 2014 CIT, New Delhi v. Spice Enfotainment] held that the assessment framed by the AO on a non-existent company would be void ab initio. As a result, the ITAT quashed the assessment whilst allowing the cross objections of the Assessee. 8. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the judgement of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) was affirmed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 16th July, 2018 dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed by the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited (supra) which was for AY 2011-12. In this judgment, apart from noting a series of orders of this Court which followed the decision in Spice Enfotainment (supra), the Supreme Court specifically discussed the decision of this Court in Skylight Hospitality LLP (supra). It noted that the SLP filed by the Assessee therein was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 'the peculiar facts of the case'. 10. The following observations of the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra) are relevant: "33. In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that the fact that the entity to which notices had been issued and in respect of which the assessment order had been passed had ceased to exist long before the notices were issued and orders passed was brought to the notice of the Department only at the stage of the proceedings before the ITAT, in the cross objections filed by the Assessee, by way of a letter. 12. Learned counsel for the Assessee on the other hand states that this letter was given to the TPO and thereafter to the CIT (A) as well as the ITAT. This fact has been noted in para 6 of the impugned order dated 30th November 2017 of the ITAT. 13. This Court finds that there was indeed a letter dated 19th October, 2008 filed with the AO informing him that pursuant to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
