When a quasi Judicial Authority like the DRP deals with lis u/s 144C of the Act then it is obligatory

Last updated: 16 July 2013

Court :
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Brief :
A perusal of the record shows that the assessee furnished a return electronically on 30.11.2006 by declaring NIL income and claimed a refund of Rs.41.04.516/- out of TDS and self assessment tax. On the basis of selection of case under scrutiny notice u/s 143(2) was issued, the record shows an information through AIR was also received that the company was registered with the Sales Tax Department with a turn over of Rs.7,82,93,491/-. Another information showed that the company had paid Rs.24,89,799/- to Galaxy Auto Pvt. Ltd. and Prime Honda, Delhi for purchase of cars. On the basis of audit report furnished by the assessee, the matter was referred to the TPO for determining the Arm’s Length Price of the transaction. The TPO vide his order dated 30.09.2009 determined a sum of Rs.2,84,01,593/- being the difference between the arm’s length margin. Accordingly a show-cause notice was issued why an addition, of the said amount not to be made to the assessee’s income. The assessee moved the alternative dispute resolution panel against the additions proposed by the TPO. The objections of the assessee were not allowed; consequently the impugned assessment order was passed. Aggrieved by this, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

Citation :
Dorling Kindersley India Pvt. Ltd., 14, Local Shopping Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-110017.PAN-AABCD1360J (APPELLANT) Vs ITO, Ward-10(4),New Delhi. (RESPONDENT)

Daily Limit Reached