CA Bhavya Goyal – [2026] 185 taxmann.com 658 (Article)

In today’s volatile geopolitical and economic environment, the latest Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) report released by the CBDT for FY 2025-26 (dated 31st March 2026) brings a much-needed sense of certainty to one of the most contentious areas of taxation—Transfer Pricing.

Transfer pricing has long been one of the most litigation prone topics in international tax. For multinational enterprises operating in India, the question of how to price transactions between related parties has historically meant years of litigation, enormous compliance burdens, and outcomes that the taxpayers could never predict with confidence. India is now making a deliberate and systematic effort to change that by way of various proactive measures such as the APA programme and the Safe Harbour Rules.

1. Advance Pricing Agreement

The APA programme is among the most effective transfer pricing certainty initiatives in India for creating a taxpayer-friendly tax environment. It delivers essential tax certainty to businesses, which benefits both taxpayers and tax authorities alike. Greater predictability in taxation plays a vital role in encouraging investment, ease of doing business and overall economic growth. India introduced the APA programme through the Finance Act, 2012, primarily to promote tax certainty and prevent double taxation on cross-border transactions. Since its inception, the programme has emphasised a thorough, constructive, fact-based, and cooperative approach to transfer pricing issues. This collaborative spirit remains the foundation of the APA framework.

According to the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, an APA is an arrangement between a taxpayer (and, where applicable, its associated enterprises) and one or more tax administrations. It establishes, in advance, an appropriate set of criteria (such as the transfer pricing method, adjustments and margins based on certain critical assumptions) to determine the arm’s length price for the covered international transactions during the term of the agreement. The APA provides certainty to the taxpayer for a period of 5 years forward and 4 years roll back which works out to 9 years if the taxpayers opts for the roll back provisions. APAs in India can be of two main types:

• Unilateral APA (UAPA) – An agreement solely between the taxpayer and the Indian tax authorities.
• Bilateral APA (BAPA) – An agreement involving the taxpayer, its associated enterprises, and the tax authorities of India and one or more foreign countries.

2. CBDT Press Release dated 31st March 2026 – The APA Annual Report

In the FY 2025-26, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has entered into a record 219 APAs with Indian taxpayers. This year the total number of APAs since the inception of the APA programme has crossed the 1000th mark, aggregating to 1034 APAs, comprising 750 UAPAs and 284 BAPAs. The following table lists the numbers of APAs signed in India since the inception of the APA programme.

The above numbers are very encouraging and show the success and progress of the India’s APA programme over the past many years since its implementation.

3. Safe Harbour

Safe Harbour Rules complement the APA framework by offering a faster, lower-cost alternative for achieving transfer pricing certainty. Introduced in 2013, the Safe Harbour framework prescribes fixed margins for specified categories of international transactions. The regime currently spans twelve transaction categories, including IT and software services, IT-enabled services, KPO, contract R&D, intra-group financing, guarantees, auto components, low value-adding services, and certain transactions in the diamond industry.

Safe Harbour is a simple, rule-based option where the CBDT prescribes fixed profit margins (e.g., the recent uniform 15.5% for IT services) for specified routine international transactions. If a taxpayer meets the eligibility criteria and declares profits at or above the prescribed margin, the tax authorities automatically accept the pricing as arm’s length without scrutiny, offering quick, low-cost compliance with minimal documentation and an automated approval process. In contrast, an APA is a negotiated, taxpayer-specific agreement between the taxpayer (and possibly foreign tax authorities in bilateral cases) and the Indian tax administration. It allows customisation of the transfer pricing method, comparables, and adjustments tailored to the company’s facts and circumstances, providing higher flexibility and stronger protection, especially for complex or high-value transactions. However, it involves a longer process, higher costs, and more detailed documentation.

In short, Safe Harbour prioritises speed and simplicity for standardised cases, while APA offers deeper, bespoke certainty at the expense of time and effort.

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [Opinion] Safe Bets & Advance Moves | Navigating Transfer Pricing APAs and Safe Harbours appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Circular No. A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 07, Dated 20.04.2026

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has withdrawn the relaxation granted vide circular dated April 1, 2026 and has clarified restrictions on INR-based foreign exchange (FX) derivative transactions with related parties.

1. Prohibition on Related Party Transactions

• Authorised Dealers (ADs) are now prohibited from undertaking INR-based FX derivative contracts with related parties

2. Limited Exceptions Permitted

The RBI has allowed restricted exceptions for:

• Cancellation or rollover of existing contracts
• Back-to-back transactions with:

1. 1. Non-related, non-resident users
   2. In accordance with the relevant Master Direction

3. Definition of ‘Related Party’

• The term ‘related party’ shall be interpreted in line with Ind AS / IAS 24

This ensures consistency with accounting and disclosure standards.

4. Regulatory Impact

The revised position aims to:

• Prevent conflicts of interest and misuse of derivatives
• Strengthen prudential controls in FX markets
• Ensure transactions are undertaken at arm’s length

5. Effective Date

• The directions are effective immediately

6. Conclusion

The withdrawal of the earlier relaxation reinforces RBI’s focus on risk containment and market integrity, ensuring that FX derivative transactions remain transparent, compliant, and free from related-party risks.

Click Here To Read The Full Circular

The post RBI Restricts INR Forex Derivatives with Related Parties appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Amod Khare & Husein Zaki – [2026] 185 taxmann.com 579 (Article)

India’s transfer pricing framework is entering a new, data-driven era. With the introduction of Form 48, reporting shifts decisively from broad standardised disclosures to a structured, analytics-ready format.

Introduced by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under the Income-tax Act, 2025, Form 48 replaces the long-standing Form 3CEB with effect from Tax Year 2026-27. The new framework significantly enhances the granularity and traceability of disclosures and is expected to impact not just reporting, but also taxpayer systems, processes, and governance.

This transition aligns with the tax administration’s increasing reliance on data analytics and automated risk assessment, signalling a clear move towards a more technology-driven compliance and audit environment.

1. From Summary‑Level to Transaction‑Level Reporting

The Income-tax Rules, 2026, and the related prescribed forms will come into force from April 1, 2026, and apply from Tax Year 2026-27 onwards. Against this backdrop, Form 48 reflects a clear move towards data‑rich, analytics‑ready reporting that can be more effectively examined by tax authorities for risk assessment and compliance review.

2. Comparative Analysis

To understand the extent of this shift, it is useful to compare the existing Form 3CEB with the Form 48 across key dimensions:

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [Opinion] Form 48 | A Paradigm Shift to Analytical Accuracy and Enhanced Accountability appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Gorantla Geosynthetics Ltd., In re - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 482 (AAR-TAMILNADU)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• C. Thiyagarajan & B. Suseel Kumar, Member

Facts of the Case

The applicant, a GST-registered waste management service provider, was engaged by the Goa Waste Management Corporation to remediate legacy waste. The scope of work included excavation of legacy waste, screening through trommels, segregation into RDF, compost, grit and inert materials, and scientific disposal of the segregated fractions, including co-processing of RDF in cement plants in compliance with Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and CPCB guidelines. The applicant sought advance ruling on the classification of the said activity and also on whether the services qualify for exemption under GST as services provided to a governmental authority in relation to municipal functions. The matter was accordingly placed before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR).

AAR Held

The AAR held that the activity of site remediation, bio-mining and waste treatment-disposal undertaken by the applicant is classifiable under Heading 9994 of the scheme of classification of services under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-06-2017, attracting GST at 18%. It was observed that the entire composite activity constitutes site remediation and waste treatment services falling under SAC 999441 and 999432/999433, and involves no supply of goods, thereby qualifying as pure services. However, the Authority further held that, since Goa Waste Management Corporation qualifies as a governmental authority and the services are rendered in relation to functions entrusted to a Municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution, they are eligible for exemption under Sl. No. 3 of the said notification. Accordingly, the Authority ruled in favour of the assessee, holding that the services were exempt under GST.

List of Cases Referred to

• Zigma Global Environ Solutions (P.) Ltd., In re [2020] 121 taxmann.com 275/43 GSTL 96 (AAR – Tamilnadu) (para 3.3)
• Gorantla Geosynthetics (P.) Ltd., In re [2024] 160 taxmann.com 258 (AAR – Tamilnadu) (para 3.4).

The post Bio-Mining & Waste Remediation Taxable at 18% GST | AAR appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Nbcc India Ltd. vs. Novman Ahmed [2026] 185 taxmann.com 399 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Anil Kshetrapal & Amit Mahajan, JJ.
• Brijender Chahar, ASG, R.V. Sinha, A.S. Singh & Ms Shriya Sharma, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Ms Sakshi Kakkar, Shakti Singh, Sarthak Karol, Sudhir Nandraj Jog, Advs. & A.K. Behra, Sr. Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Respondent was appointed as Managing Director of petitioner No. 2 company, HSCC (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘HSCC’). Subsequently, petitioner No. 1 company, NBCC (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘NBCC’), being the holding company of HSCC, sought the respondent’s explanation for alleged serious procedural lapses and irregularities.

After considering his reply, NBCC’s Board found it unsatisfactory and forwarded the matter, along with its remarks, to the administrative ministry. With the approval of the competent authority, the respondent was repatriated to NBCC and his services as Managing Director of HSCC were terminated. The respondent filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

The Tribunal held that the respondent, having been appointed by the Ministry, held a civil post within the meaning of Section 14(1)(b)(ii), and that the Original Application was maintainable. It was noted that the appointment of the respondent was made by the President of India, acting in the capacity of President of HSCC, and not in her capacity as the constitutional head of the Union.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that the appointment was made pursuant to the Articles of Association (AoA) of an incorporated Government company and was, accordingly, tenure-based and corporate in character, rather than a civil post held under the Union.

It was further observed that the decision of termination had been taken by the Board of Directors of HSCC, which, upon consideration, found the explanation furnished by the respondent to be unsatisfactory. The ultimate authority in this regard was the President of the company, who was the competent authority as per Article 112 of the AoA, which authorised the President to remove any Director, including the Chairman, from office of HSCC.

Further, although a notification under Section 14(2) had been issued by the Central Government with respect to NBCC, the present dispute pertained exclusively to the services of the respondent with HSCC. Therefore, the existence of such notification qua NBCC could not, ipso facto, be determinative of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal over a dispute pertaining to HSCC.

The High Court held that, in the absence of a specific notification with respect to HSCC, it could not be brought within the jurisdictional sweep of the Tribunal by a process of association or inference. Accordingly, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application filed by the respondent.

List of Cases Referred to

• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Audh Narain Singh 1964 taxmann.com 31 (SC) (para 15)
• State of Orrisa v. Ram Chandra Dev AIR 1964 SC 685 (para 15)
• Dr. S.L. Agarwal v. General Manager, Hindustan Steel Ltd [1970] 1969 taxmann.com 330 (SC) (para 16)
• S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 1981 taxmann.com 707 (SC) (para 16)
• Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar 1969 taxmann.com 300 (SC) (para 16)
• Praga Tools Corpn. v. C.V. Imanual [1969] 39 Comp Case 889 (SC) (para 16)
• State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal (1980) 4 SCC 653 (para 17.2)
• Ashok Kumar Bajpai v. Dr. [Smt.] Ranjana Bajpai [2003 SCC OnLine ALL 1296] (para 17.3)
• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India 1997 taxmann.com 1023 (SC) (para 18.1)
• Rajeev Kumar v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan [2010] 3 taxmann.com 816 (SC) (para 18.1)
• Vinay v. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine Del 6396] (para 18.2)
• Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 4 SCC 697 (para 18.4)
• Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd (2013) 15 SCC 85 (para 32)
• Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India [2012] 17 taxmann.com 202/204 Taxman 408 (SC) (para 32).

The post CAT Has No Jurisdiction Over HSCC MD Termination | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Editorial Team – [2026] 185 taxmann.com 580 (Article)

World Labour Law News provides a weekly snapshot of Labour law developments from around the globe. Here’s a glimpse of the key Labour law update this week.

1. Labour Law

1.1 The Swedish Work Environment Authority Reviews Safety in Construction Projects – Focus on Early Stages

On April 1, 2026, it was announced that the Swedish Work Environment Authority will carry out an extensive inspection effort during the period April to December 2026 to examine how actors in construction and civil engineering projects meet the requirements for systematic work environment work. The efforts include approximately 600 companies and organisations throughout the country.

The background is the rules on design and construction work environment coordination (AFS 2023:3), which came into force on 1 January 2025. The rules specify the responsibilities and tasks of those involved in planning, designing, and coordinating construction projects. The purpose of the supervision is to prevent accidents and ill health in an industry where the risks are high and where both serious accidents and workplace crime occur.

The construction industry is one of the most accident-prone. On average, about ten people die each year in construction activities, and in addition, around 4,500 work-related injuries with sick leave are reported. By working systematically already in the planning stage, many risks can be prevented before they arise, says Magnus Henriksson, project manager at the Swedish Work Environment Authority.

Actors need to cooperate to prevent risks

The supervision is primarily aimed at developers, construction work environment coordinators for planning and design (Bas-P) and designers. These actors set the framework for work environment work and have a major impact on safety, both during the construction phase and in the finished building or facility.

Source – Press Release

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [World Labour Law News] Sweden Construction Safety Drive 2026 | Early Stage Focus appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: OXYZO Financial Services Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax -[2026] 185 taxmann.com 315 (Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.
• S. Sakthi Siddharth for the Petitioner.
• R. Suresh Kumar, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner, a secured creditor, submitted that the borrower had created a mortgage over the subject property and that the account was being proceeded against under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The particulars of the security interest were also duly registered with the Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest (CERSAI) portal.

Subsequently, the first respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax (GST), issued a communication creating a charge over the same property for recovery of tax dues amounting to about Rs. 136.06 crores, and the second respondent, the Sub-Registrar, recorded the said charge in the encumbrance register.

The petitioner contended that, by virtue of Section 31B of the SARFAESI Act, it had priority over the secured asset and, therefore, the charge created by the GST authorities ought not to affect its rights. The petitioner filed the present writ petition before the High Court challenging the said communication and consequential entry, and seeking removal of the charge.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that, by virtue of Section 31B, a secured creditor has priority over the secured asset, even over tax dues of Government authorities. A secured creditor can enforce the security and bring the property to sale notwithstanding the charge created by the tax authorities and the entry made by the Sub-Registrar. However, the tax authorities are not precluded from creating or recording a charge in the encumbrance register. Upon auction sale, any surplus amount is liable to be appropriated towards tax dues, and the auction purchaser acquires the property free from such charge.

The High Court held that the charge could not be quashed at the initial stage. The authorities may claim from the surplus, if any, and the secured creditor or auction purchaser may seek appropriate endorsement from the Sub-Registrar.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Assistant Commissioner(Commercial Taxes) v. The Indian Overseas Bank [W.P No. 2675 of 2011, dated 10-11-2016] (para 6) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Asstt. Commissioner(Commercial Taxes) v. Indian Overseas Bank [W. P. No. 2675 of 2011, dated 10-11-2016] (para 6).

The post Secured Creditors Prevail Over Tax Dues Under Section 31B | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

1. Query

Gamma Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the company”) is engaged in the business of operating and managing an airport under a long-term concession arrangement. In the course of its operations, the company enters into agreements with third-party concessionaires for providing specific services at the airport, including the operation and maintenance of certain equipment.

Under an earlier concession arrangement, a third party (old concessionaire) had installed and operated certain equipment at the airport. As per the terms of the agreement, the company had a contractual right to acquire such equipment at the end of the concession period at a value determined based on specified conditions. This right effectively enabled the company to obtain control over the equipment in future and is referred to as a reversionary right.

Subsequently, upon expiry of the earlier concession, the company entered into a new concession agreement with another party (new concessionaire) for the continuation of similar services. As part of this arrangement, the company agreed to transfer or relinquish its right to acquire the existing equipment in favour of the new concessionaire. In consideration for such relinquishment of rights, the company is entitled to receive a fixed amount of Rs. 100 crore from the new concessionaire at a future date.

In this background, the issue for consideration is what should be the appropriate accounting treatment, under Accounting Standards (AS), for the consideration receivable by the company on relinquishment of such reversionary rights?

2. Relevant Provisions

Accounting Standard 26 – Intangible Assets

Para 6.1 of AS 26

An intangible asset is an identifiable non-monetary asset, without physical substance, held for use in the production or supply of goods or services, for rental to others, or for administrative purposes.

Para 6.2 of AS 26

An asset is a resource:

(a) controlled by an enterprise as a result of past events; and

(b) from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the enterprise.

Para 14 of AS 26

An enterprise controls an asset if the enterprise has the power to obtain the future economic benefits flowing from the underlying resource and also can restrict the access of others to those benefits. The capacity of an enterprise to control the future economic benefits from an intangible asset would normally stem from legal rights that are enforceable in a court of law.

Para 87 of AS 26

An intangible asset should be derecognised (eliminated from the balance sheet) on disposal or when no future economic benefits are expected from its use and subsequent disposal.

Para 88 of AS 26

Gains or losses arising from the retirement or disposal of an intangible asset should be determined as the difference between the net disposal proceeds and the carrying amount of the asset and should be recognised as income or expense in the statement of profit and loss.

3. Expert Advisory Committee Opinion

The issue under consideration relates to the nature of the right held by the company and the appropriate accounting treatment of consideration receivable on its relinquishment.

At the outset, it is necessary to determine whether the reversionary right held by the company qualifies as an asset. As per AS 26, an asset must be identifiable, controlled by the enterprise, and expected to generate future economic benefits.

In the present case, the company had a contractual right under the concession agreement to acquire the underlying equipment at the end of the concession period. This right is separable and has been transferred independently to another party, which indicates that it is identifiable in nature. Further, such a right arises from a legally enforceable agreement, thereby establishing control. The company also had the ability to derive economic benefits from this right, either by exercising it or by transferring it to another party.

Accordingly, the reversionary right satisfies the definition of an intangible asset under AS 26. Further, since the company appears not to have incurred any significant cost for acquiring this right, it would have been recognised at a nominal value in its books.

The next aspect relates to the accounting treatment of consideration receivable on the transfer of such a right. AS 26 provides that an intangible asset should be derecognised upon disposal, and any resulting gain or loss should be recognised in the statement of profit and loss as the difference between net disposal proceeds and the carrying amount.

In the present case, the company has agreed to transfer its reversionary right to the new concessionaire in exchange for a consideration of ₹100 crore. This transaction represents a disposal of an intangible asset. Since the carrying amount of such an asset is nominal, the difference between the consideration and the carrying amount would effectively represent the gain arising on disposal.

Further, it is also relevant to note that the acquisition of the underlying equipment by the new concessionaire from the old concessionaire is a separate transaction and does not affect the accounting treatment of the consideration receivable by the company for relinquishment of its rights.

Accordingly, the accounting treatment should be aligned with the principles relating to de-recognition of intangible assets as prescribed under AS 26.

Click Here To Read The Full Story

The post Accounting for Reversionary Rights Relinquishment Under AS appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: NIT Traders vs. Union of India - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 311 (Gauhati)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.
• Ms M L Gope, Ms N Hawelia, S K Saha & Ms S Sarkar, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• S K Medhi, SC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a proprietorship concern registered under GST, had its registration cancelled by the Superintendent under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act and Assam GST Act on account of continuous non-filing of returns for six months. Prior to cancellation, a show cause notice (SCN) was issued proposing cancellation on the ground of non-compliance in filing returns. The petitioner sought restoration of the GST registration, contending that it is ready to file all pending returns and discharge the tax, including interest and late fees. It was further submitted that cancellation of registration entailed serious civil consequences affecting business operations and continuity. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that under the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules and Assam GST Rules, the proper officer is empowered to drop cancellation proceedings and restore registration in Form GST REG-20 where the taxpayer furnishes all pending returns and pays tax along with interest and late fee. It was observed that Section 29 provides for cancellation of registration for non-filing of returns. Still, the statutory scheme read with Rule 22(4) permits revival upon subsequent compliance by the registered person. The Court further held that such cancellation carries serious civil consequences. It was noted that the proper officer retains jurisdiction to consider restoration once the compliance requirements under the Rules are met. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of, permitting the petitioner to approach the authority for restoration, subject to compliance with the filing of returns and payment of dues in accordance with law.

List of Cases Referred to

• Dipjyoti Borah v. State of Assam [2025] 176 taxmann.com 765/111 GST 201 (Gauhati) (para 8).

The post GST Registration Restoration Allowed on Return Compliance | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Xchanging Solutions Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 337 (Bangalore-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Prashant Maharishi, Vice President & Soundararajan K., Judicial Member
• Padamchand Kincha, CA for the Appellant.
• Dr Divya K.J., CIT DR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee company, which renders software development services, filed its return declaring nil income. The scrutiny assessment was completed, resulting in an income determination of about Rs. 19.08 crores. During the proceedings, the Tribunal restored the assessee’s plea for exclusion of five software development comparables to the DRP. Pursuant to the Tribunal’s order, the TPO passed an order and included the two comparables, but did not exclude the above five comparables that had been restored to the DRP and retained a transfer pricing adjustment in the software development services segment.

Based on the TPO’s order, the AO issued a draft assessment order under section 144C, noting, inter alia, that the DRP had not dealt with the five comparables remanded by the Tribunal to the DRP, while the TPO retained them. The dispute resolution panel confirmed inclusion of the five comparables and found no infirmity in the TPO’s and AO’s actions. Per the DRP’s directions, the AO issued the final assessment order. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Bangalore Tribunal.

ITAT Held

The Tribunal held that the assessee contended that the TPO’s retention of the five comparables was beyond his domain since the Tribunal had remitted their exclusion to the DRP, rendering the order invalid. Admittedly, the ITAT restored the issue of exclusion of 5 comparables to the dispute resolution panel. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the respondent was the assessing officer.

Therefore, in all fairness, any direction that needs to be given is to be given to the assessing officer and nobody else. Admittedly, the TPO, as well as the dispute resolution panel, are not respondents in the appeal before the ITAT. Section 254(1) mandates ITAT to pass an order after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard and pass such order thereon as it thinks fit.

Naturally, the DRP or TPO is not a party before the ITAT, so the ITAT has never heard of either, and therefore, no direction should have been given to them. Though the powers of the ITAT are wide, they are not so wide as to direct any authority. The powers are with respect to the appeal before them, and directions are limited only to the parties.

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the above extent.

List of Cases Referred to

• Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary (2015) 13 SCC 722 (para 21)
• Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad (1999) 8 SCC 266 (para 21).

The post ITAT Can’t Direct DRP or TPO if Not Party | Bangalore Tribunal appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source