The assessee challenged the Draft Assessment Order under section 144C and the consequential final assessment and penalty notices. The Assessing Officer had referred the case to the TPO, who accepted that the international transactions were at arm’s length and made no variation. Despite this, the AO issued a Draft Assessment Order under section 144C. The Court held that the assessee could not be treated as an “eligible assessee” under section 144C(15)(b) since no variation had arisen from the TPO’s order. Once there was no variation prejudicial to the assessee, the provisions of section 144C had no application, and the AO was required to frame the assessment under section 143(3) alone. The Court rejected Revenue’s contention that “variation” includes “no variation.” Relying on Pankaj Extrusion Ltd v. ACIT (2011) 10 taxmann.com 17 (Guj.) (HC) and Honda Cars India Ltd v. DCIT (2016) 67 taxmann.com 29 (Delhi)( HC)  it quashed the Draft Assessment Order, the Final Assessment Order, demand notice, and penalty notices. ( WP(L) No. 14748 of 2025, dt. 9-9-2025 ) .