{"id":2688,"date":"2011-02-14T21:54:17","date_gmt":"2011-02-14T16:24:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=2688"},"modified":"2011-02-14T21:54:17","modified_gmt":"2011-02-14T16:24:17","slug":"ericsson-ab-vs-adit-delhi-high-court-s-144c-drp-must-act-to-expectations-not-have-perfunctory-approach","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/ericsson-ab-vs-adit-delhi-high-court-s-144c-drp-must-act-to-expectations-not-have-perfunctory-approach\/","title":{"rendered":"Ericsson AB vs. ADIT (Delhi High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=349\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=349&varname2=ericsson_144C_DRP.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (ericsson_144C_DRP.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong>S. 144C DRP must act to expectations &#038; not have perfunctory approach<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The assessee filed a writ petition to challenge a s. 144C draft assessment order on the ground that <em>though the TPO had directed that no transfer pricing adjustment was required to be done and this was binding on the AO u\/s 92CA (4), the AO had still made a transfer pricing adjustment without giving the assessee an opportunity<\/em>. HELD declining to interfere in the writ and directing the assessee to approach the DRP:<\/p>\n<p>(i) S. 144C which empowers the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to issue directions to the AO <strong>cannot be treated as totally redundant or absolutely inefficacious remedy<\/strong> to the assessee. The assessee is obliged to take the statutory remedy;<\/p>\n<p>(ii) <strong><em>The DRP, being an authority created under a statute and conferred with the powers, has the obligation to act as a body living to the expectations which the law mandates<\/em><\/strong>. The DRP has to afford adequate opportunity for personal hearing and deal with the issues urged by a <strong><em>speaking order which would reflect cogent reasons<\/em><\/strong>. This is apt to say so that <strong><em>no assessee can have any kind of apprehension that the approach to the DRP is perfunctory<\/em><\/strong>. <\/p>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\n<strong>Note<\/strong>: The DRP&#8217;s &#8220;laconic&#8221; orders have been criticized in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/vodafone-essar-ltd-vs-dispute-resolution-panel-delhi-high-court-drp-must-give-cogent-and-germane-reasons-in-support-of-s-144c-directions\">Vodafone Essar Ltd<\/a><\/strong> (Delhi High Court), <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/gap-international-sourcing-india-pvt-ltd-vs-dcit-itat-mumbai-drp-must-not-pass-laconic-orders-but-must-deal-with-assessee-objections\">GAP International Sourcing India<\/a><\/strong> (ITAT Delhi) &#038; <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/adobe-systems-india-transfer-pricing-super-normal-profit-cos-must-be-excluded-from-comparables-drp-must-not-pass-cursory-laconic-orders\">Adobe Systems India Pvt Ltd<\/a><\/strong> (ITAT Delhi)<\/strong>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><strong><em>The DRP, being an authority created under a statute and conferred with the powers, has the obligation to act as a body living to the expectations which the law mandates<\/em><\/strong>. The DRP has to afford adequate opportunity for personal hearing and deal with the issues urged by a <strong><em>speaking order which would reflect cogent reasons<\/em><\/strong>. This is apt to say so that <strong><em>no assessee can have any kind of apprehension that the approach to the DRP is perfunctory<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/ericsson-ab-vs-adit-delhi-high-court-s-144c-drp-must-act-to-expectations-not-have-perfunctory-approach\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2688","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2688","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2688"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2688\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2688"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2688"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2688"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}