Bombay High Court
Archroma International India Private ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 10 October, 2025
Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
2025:BHC-OS:18666-DB
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
signed by
VINA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
VINA ARVIND
ARVIND KHADPE
KHADPE Date: WRIT PETITION (L) NO.11226 OF 2025
2025.10.13
15:08:28
+0530
Archroma International (India) Private .. Petitioner
Limited
earlier known as Huntsman International
(India)
Private Limited
Lighthall B Wing, Saki Vihar Road,
Andheri East, Mumbai 400072
PAN : AAACH149J
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle 2(1)(1)
Room No.561, Aayakar Bhavan,
M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400020
2. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
(Transfer Pricing) - 2(2)(1),
Room No.561, Aayakar Bhavan,
M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400020
3 Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Govt. Of India,
North Block,
New Delhi - 110 001 .. Respondents.
Mr. J. D. Mistry, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Paras Savla,
Mr. Harsh Shah, Mr. Pratik Poddar, Mr. Rajnandini Shukla,
Advocates for the Petitioner.
Page 1 of 26
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2025 23:20:13 :::
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
Ms. Sushma Nagaraj, with Mr. Abhinav Palsikar, Advocates
for the Respondents.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.
Judgment Reserved On : 16th September, 2025
Judgment Pronounced On: 10th October, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER Amit Satyavan Jamsandekar, J ).
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Respondents
waive service. With the consent of the parties, taken up for final
hearing.
2. By the present Petition, filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950, the Petitioner is challenging the
inaction of the Respondents of not giving effect to the directions
dated 19th March 2020 of the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP")
and consequently not processing the refund claim of the Petitioner.
The directions were given by the DRP to the 1 st Respondent under
Section 144(C)(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act").
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
3. The main issue raised in the petition is the effect of not
completing the assessment within a period of one month from the
end of the month in which the Assessing Officer receives such
directions from the DRP under Section 144(C) (5) of the Act.
According to the Petitioner, if the Assessing Officer fails to
complete the assessment within the time frame as prescribed by
Section 144 (C) (13), the transfer pricing addition ought to be
treated as non est on the ground that it becomes time barred.
4. The facts and circumstances relating to the dispute, which is
the subject matter of the present Petition, are as follows:-
(i) The Petitioner filed its Return of Income for AY 2010-
2011 on 14th October, 2010. In the said Return of
Income, the Petitioner declared its total income as
Rs.78,58,40,928.00. The Petitioner claimed a refund of
Rs.3,32,90,793.00 arising out of (a) tax deducted at
source of Rs.60,49,110.00; and (b) advance tax paid of
Rs. 29,51,10,000.00.
(ii) The Return of Income filed by the Petitioner was
selected for a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2)
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
of the Act. The order to that effect was passed on 21 st
September, 2011.
(iii) During the assessment proceedings, a reference was
made to the 2nd Respondent, to determine the Arm's
length price of the international transactions entered
into by the Petitioner. The transfer pricing proceedings
culminated in an order dated 28 th January, 2014, under
Section 92CA(3) of the Act. By the said order, the 2 nd
Respondent proposed a transfer pricing adjustment of
Rs.5,26,86,111.00, which was concerning the
'Corporate Service Charges'.
(iv) On 26th February, 2014, the Petitioner filed a submission
before the 1st Respondent, by which the Petitioner
claimed depreciation on intangibles and challenged the
disallowance made under Section 14(A) of the Act. The
Petitioner further claimed depreciation on goodwill.
(v) Thereafter, on 12th March, 2014, the 1st Respondent
issued a draft assessment order under Section 144 C (1)
of the Act. By the draft assessment order, the 1 st
Respondent computed the total income at
Rs.89,46,03,871/- as against the Return of Income of
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
Rs.78,58,40,928/-. By the draft assessment order dated
12th March, 2014, the 1st Respondent proposed
additional disallowances to the Petitioner's Return of
Income. By the draft assessment order, the 1 st
Respondent also did not allow a depreciation claim on
goodwill, which was made by the petitioner vide the
letter dated 26th February, 2014.
(vi) The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the draft assessment
order dated 12th March, 2014, filed its objections before
the DRP under Section 144 C (2) of the Act. The
Petitioner also filed additional grounds of
challenge/objections to the draft assessment order
before the DRP.
(vii) On 13th November, 2014, the DRP provided its
directions in accordance with the provisions of Section
144 C (5) of the Act. The DRP, in its directions, allowed
the depreciation on goodwill claimed by the Petitioner.
Further, the DRP directed the Assessing Officer to give
effect to the direction as per the provisions of Section
144 C (13) of the Act.
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
(viii) Thereafter, the 1st Respondent, on 31st December, 2014,
passed the final assessment order, under Sections 144
(3) read with 144(C) (13) of the Act and determined the
Petitioner's income as Rs.89,46,03,871/-.
(ix) It was the case of the Petitioner that the 1 st Respondent
erred in not following the directions issued by the DRP
on 13th November, 2014, by which the DRP allowed the
depreciation on goodwill. Therefore, the Petitioner, on
18th December, 2015, filed an Appeal before the Mumbai
Bench of Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, and
challenged the final assessment order dated 31 st
December, 2014, passed by the 1st Respondent.
(x) The Tribunal decided the Appeal filed by the Petitioner
on 18.12.2015. As far as the transfer pricing adjustment
of Rs.5,26,86,111.00 is concerned, the Tribunal
remanded the matter back to the file of the DRP for
fresh adjudication. The remand was following the
precedent adopted in the Petitioner's own case of
earlier Assessment Year i.e. A.Y. 2009 & 2010. The
Tribunal directed the DRP to pass a speaking and
reasoned order after affording a reasonable opportunity
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
of being heard to the Petitioner. Thus, the petitioner's
ground concerning the erroneous disallowance of the
corporate service charge was treated as allowed by the
tribunal for statistical purposes. Further, the Tribunal
allowed the Petitioner's claim of depreciation on
intangibles. It also allowed the Petitioner's claim for
depreciation on goodwill and directed the 1 st
Respondent to follow the directions of the DRP
regarding the claim. The Tribunal further deleted the
disallowance under Section 14 (A) of the Act and also
allowed payment under Section 43 (B) of the Act. Thus,
the Appeal of the Petitioner was partly allowed.
(xi) The 1st Respondent, being aggrieved by the decision of
the Tribunal dated 18th December, 2015, filed an Appeal
bearing No. Income Tax Appeal No.1619 of 2016 before
this Court. The said Appeal came to be admitted by this
Hon'ble Court on 30th January, 2019.
(xii) Thereafter, the 1st Respondent passed an order on 2 nd
August, 2019, by which the 1 st Respondent gave effect
to the Tribunal's order dated 18 th December, 2015, and
determined the Petitioner's income at
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
Rs.77,55,27,905.00, and a refund payable as of
Rs.1,81,35,950.00. It is the case of the Petitioner that,
the order passed by the 1st Respondent on 2nd August,
2019, granted relief on all issues which were decided in
favour of the Petitioner. However, the order did not
reduce the taxable income by the transfer pricing
adjustment of Rs. 5,26,86,111.00.
(xiii) In the meanwhile, the DRP issued fresh directions to
the Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") on 19 th March,
2020. The DRP issued these directions in the remand
proceedings, which were ordered by the Tribunal on
18th December, 2015, in an Appeal filed by the
Petitioner.
(xiv) The DRP, by its directions dated 19 th March, 2020,
directed the Assessing Officer / TPO to re-examine the
corporate service charges on the lines of its directions
for AY 2014-2015. The operative part of the DRP
directions dated 19th March, 2020, reads as follows:
"3.3Since, the facts of the case are similar
in nature, the A.O./T.P.O. is directed to
re-examine the corporate service
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
charges (Rs.5,71,27,337/-) segment-wise
on the same lines as above, and allow
that part of the same which is found
acceptable based on the applicability of
arms's length principle. The objections
are disposed off accordingly."
(emphasis supplied)
5. In this background, Mr. Mistry, the Learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that the 1 st
Respondent was required to pass a final assessment order as
mandated by the provisions of Section 144 (C) (13) of the Act, in
conformity with the directions issued by the DRP on 19 th March,
2020. He further submitted that the requirements of Section 144
(C) (13) is that the final assessment order ought to be passed
within one month from the end of the month in which the 1 st
Respondent receives such directions. Mr. Mistry further submitted
that the 1st Respondent did not follow the mandate of Section 144
(C) (13) and, therefore, the Petitioner, by its letter dated 5 th
August, 2020, requested the 1st Respondent to give effect to the
directions of the DRP passed on 19 th March, 2020. Mr. Mistry
submitted that after the letter dated 5 th August, 2020, the
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
representative of the Petitioner constantly followed up on the
matter and visited the office of the 1 st Respondent on several
occasions to ascertain the status of the pending proceedings.
6. Mr. Mistry has drawn our attention to the statement made in
paragraph 19 of the petition, where the Petitioner has stated that
during their visits to the office of the 1 st Respondent, the officer
assured the authorised representative of the Petitioner that the
issues concerning the specific assessment year in question would
soon be taken up for consideration. Mr. Mistry also took us
through the dates, which are drawn on the basis of internal
records of the Petitioner, on which the representatives of the
Petitioner visited the office of the 1 st Respondent. According to the
Petitioner, there was no response from the 1 st Respondent.
Therefore, on 12th August, 2024, the Petitioner, by its letter,
requested the 1st Respondent to declare the second round of
proceedings for giving effect to the DRP's directions dated 19 th
March, 2020, as barred by limitation. On 5 th September, 2024, the
Petitioner sent a reminder to the 1 st Respondent once again
requesting that the proceedings that was to be given effect as per
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
the DRP's directions dated 19 th March, 2020, be declared as
barred by limitation, and that the taxes paid in excess of the
amount payable ought to be refunded to the Petitioner along with
applicable interest. The Petitioner sent similar reminders on 24 th
December, 2024, 16th January, 2025, and 28th February 2025.
7. Mr. Mistry, the Learned Senior Counsel, submitted that
Section 144 (C) (13) of the Act has a strict timeline and the
timeline provided by the provisions of Section 144 (C) (13) of the
Act are mandatory. The 1st Respondent does not have discretion to
deviate from the strict timeline provided by the Section. The 1 st
Respondent ought to complete the assessment, that too in
conformity with the directions of the DRP, within one month from
the end of the month in which such direction is received. He
submitted that, as per the scheme of the Act, the only step which
remains after the DRP gives the directions under section 144 C (5)
of the Act is to give effect to the same within the time limit as
provided by Section 144 C (13) of the Act. Mr. Mistry further
submitted that if this timeline, as provided by the Section, is not
abided by the 1st Respondent, and if the directions of the DRP are
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
not given effect to by the 1 st Respondent, then the proceedings
ought to be treated as barred by limitation and the consequences
must follow. He submitted that, in the present case, as a
consequence, the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of the excess
taxes paid by the Petitioner.
8. Mr. Mistry, the Learned Senior Counsel, also submitted that
by virtue of the scheme of Section 144(C) and the applicable
provisions of Section 153, the entire proceedings from the
beginning are vitiated.
9. Mr. Mistry also drew our attention to the decisions in Roca
Bathroom Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Dispute Resolution Panel-2,
Bangalore [2021] 127 Taxman.com 332, passed by the learned
Single Judge of the Madras High Court, and Commissioner of
Income Tax Vs. Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd, [2022] 140
Taxman.com 304, passed by the Division Bench of the Madras
High Court, and also decision of this Hon'ble Court in Shelf
Drilling Ron Tappmeyet Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Income Tax (International Taxation), [2023 SCC Online Bom
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
1589]. He submitted that, in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron
Tappmeyer Ltd., [Bombay], this Hon'ble High Court has
considered both the decisions delivered in Roca Bathroom
Products (P) Ltd. passed by the Single Judge and the Division
Bench of the Madras High Court.
10. Mr. Mistry submitted that the decision of this court in Shelf
Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. was the subject matter of
challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asst.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shelf Drilling Ron
Tappmeyer Ltd. [SLP/20569 - 20572/2023 dated 8/8/2025].
In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issues
concerning the interpretation of Section 144 (C) and 153 of the
Act and the timelines provided therein. Her Ladyship Justice
Nagarathna J. in her judgment dated 8 th August, 2025 in Shelf
Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. has framed the issue in the
following words:
"2.2 ...The question which falls for our
consideration is on the applicability of Section
153 to a proceeding under Section 144 C of the
act namely, whether the period of eleven months
as envisaged under Section 144 C of the Act
should be over and above the limitation period
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
prescribed, particularly, under section 153 (1) or
(3), as the case may be. In other words, whether
the time consumed for concluding the
proceeding under section 144 C has to be
subsumed within the limitation prescribed under
section 153 (1) or (3) or as the case may be."
The Bench of two Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme court have
delivered a split verdict in Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd.
on the above issue. The larger bench to decide the issues has not
yet been constituted, and therefore, the issue is still pending
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. Mr Mistry further submitted that all the above-referred
Judgments and the issues which are pending before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court are larger issues about the interpretation of
Sections 144(C) and 153 of the Act and the timelines provided
therein. He submitted that, in the present case, the larger
interpretation of Sections 144(C) and 153 of the Act is not the
subject matter.
12. However, he submitted that his submissions relating to the
larger issue of interpretation of Section 144 C and that of Section
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
153 of the Act be kept open, and his submissions only on the
mandate of Section 144 (C) (13) of the Act, and more particularly
the timeline given in the Section, be considered for deciding the
present matter.
13. Ms. Nagaraj, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submitted
that the timelines under Section 144 (C) (13) of the Act would not
be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
According to the Revenue, if the DRP passes directions in a matter
that was the subject of remand and if the directions are passed in
the second round, then the timelines provided under Section
144(C)(13) of the Act are not applicable. Therefore, according to
the revenue, the 1st Respondent is not bound to complete the
assessment within one month from the end of the month in which
such directions are received. He further submitted that the 1 st
Respondent is in the process of completing the assessment.
According to the revenue, not passing the final assessment order
within the time frame provided by the Section, does not vitiate the
proceedings, and the same cannot be treated as time barred. Ms.
Nagaraj further submitted that the larger issue of interpretation of
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
Section 144 C and that of Section 153 of the Act relating to the
timelines is pending before the Hon'ble supreme Court in Asst.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shelf Drilling Ron
Tappmeyer Ltd. [SLP/20569 - 20572/2023 dated 8/8/2025].
Therefore, reliance ought not to be placed on the decisions of this
Court in Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. (Supra) or that of
the Madras High Court in Roca Bathroom Products (P) Ltd.
(Supra). In any case, Ms. Nagaraj submitted that the 1 st
Respondent is in the process of completing the assessment as per
the provisions of Section 144 C (13) of the Act.
14. We have considered the above submissions made on behalf of
the Petitioner and the Revenue.
15. There is no dispute about the facts, circumstances, and the
sequence of events and communications addressed by the
Petitioner to the 1st Respondent. Admittedly, directions were given
by the DRP in the second round of proceedings on 19 th March,
2020. The 1st Respondent has received the directions of the DRP,
and there is no dispute even on this aspect.
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
16. Thus, the core issue revolves around whether the transfer
pricing addition of Rs. 5,26,86,111.00 should be treated as non-est
on the ground that the proceedings to give effect to the DRP's
directions dated 19th March, 2020, are now barred by limitation.
17. As rightly submitted by Mr. Mistry, we are concerned with a
limited issue of Section 144 (C) (13), which is the timeline
provided by the Section and the consequence of not giving effect
to the DRP directions within a period of one month from the end of
the month in which such direction is received. Therefore, we have
not considered any of the above referred judgments of the Learned
Single Judge or the Division bench of the Mardras high Court or
the judgment of this Court in Shelf Drilling (supra) which are
the subject matter of split judgment in Asst. Commissioner of
Income Tax Vs. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd.
[SLP/20569 - 20572/2023 dated 8/8/2025]. The issue being
that only of interpretation of section 144 C (13), we have
independently analysed and interpreted the same and kept the
argument of Mr. Mistry on the larger issue of the timelines arising
out of Section 153 and 144 C of the Act and its interpretation
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
expressly open. Therefore, we have confined our analysis and
findings only to the interpretation of Section 144 (C) (13) of the
Act for the purpose of deciding the present matter.
18. In the scheme of Section 144 C, the procedure begins with
Sub Section (1) of Section 144 C. It requires the Assessing Officer
to forward a draft assessment order to the eligible assessee [as
defined in Section 144 C (15) (b)] in case he proposes to make, on
or after the 1st October, 2009, any variation which is prejudicial to
the interest of such assessee.
Section 144 C (1) reads as follows:
"144 C (1) The Assessing Officer shall,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
this Act, in the first instance, forward a draft of the
proposed order of assessment (hereafter in this
section referred to as the draft order) to the eligible
assessee if he proposes to make, on or after the 1st
day of October, 2009, any variation which is
prejudicial to the interest of such assessee."
19. Admittedly, the petitioner being an eligible assessee, the 1 st
Respondent sent a draft assessment order to the Petitioner on 12 th
March, 2014. Once the Assessing officer invokes the provisions of
Section 144 C (1), then the assessee on the receipt of the draft
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
order has two options under Section 144C(2); i) file his
acceptance of the variations to the Assessing officer; or ii) file his
objections, if any, to such variations either with the DRP or the
Assessing officer.
20. Section 144 C (2) reads as follows:
"144 C (2) On receipt of the draft order, the eligible
assessee shall, within thirty days of the receipt by
him of the draft order,--
(a) file his acceptance of the variations to the
Assessing Officer; or
(b) file his objections, if any, to such variation with,--
(i) the Dispute Resolution Panel; and
(ii) the Assessing Officer."
21. In the present case, the Petitioner filed its objections with the
DRP. Therefore, the provisions of Section 144 C (5) were triggered.
Section 144 C (5) reads as follows:
"144 C (5) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall, in a
case where any objection is received under sub-
section (2), issue such directions, as it thinks fit, for
the guidance of the Assessing Officer to enable him
to complete the assessment."
22. Section 144C also mandates a further step which is
required to be taken after the proceedings under Section
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
144 (C) (5) of the Act are over. That further step is
provided for in Section 144 (C) (13) of the Act, which
reads as follows :-
"144 C (13) Upon receipt of the directions issued
under sub-section (5), the Assessing Officer shall, in
conformity with the directions, complete,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in section 153 or section 153B, the
assessment without providing any further opportunity
of being heard to the assessee, within one month
from the end of the month in which such
direction is received" (emphasis supplied).
23. The requirements of Section 144 C (13) are:
(a) There ought to be directions passed by the DRP as per
sub-section (5) of Section 144(C);
(b) The directions passed by the DRP under Section 144 C (5)
ought to be received by the Assessing Officer;
(c) It casts a burden on the Assessing officer by the
mandatory language of the Section to complete the
assessment; And
(d) That the Assessing Officer ought to complete the
assessment within one month from the end of the month in
which such direction of the DRP is received.
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
24. The language of Section 144 C (13) is clear, unambiguous
and mandatory. It provides a mechanism for the steps that must
be taken after proceedings under subsection (5) of Section 144(C)
are completed. The mechanism envisaged under the section has a
strict timeline, which cannot be deviated from by the Assessing
Officer. The words used by Section 144 C (13) reads as "the
Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions,
complete, ..., the assessment without providing any further
opportunity of being heard to the assessee,..." (emphasis
supplied). Therefore, the Assessing officer ought to complete the
assessment and that too in conformity with the directions given by
the DRP under sub-section (5) of Section 144(C) of the Act. The
word 'shall' in the Section makes the provision mandatory.
25. Further, the Section also has a non obstante clause, and by
that clause, it excludes the application of Section 153 or 153 B of
the Act from the ambit of limitation provided by Section 144(C)
(13). Thus, for the purpose of compliance of the provisions of
Section 144(C) (13), the provisions of Sections 153 or 153 B are
expressly excluded.
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
26. Therefore, by clear language of Section 144(C) (13) of the
Act, the 1st Respondent ought to have completed the assessment
order within a period of one month from the end of the month in
which such direction of the DRP is received. We agree with the
submissions of Mr. Mistry that the Assessing Office does not have
any discretion after the DRP issues directions under section 144
(5), and he cannot deviate from the procedure envisaged under the
Section. In the present case, despite repeated reminders, the 1 st
Respondent has not completed the assessment in conformity with
the directions of the DRP, as passed on 19th March 2020.
27. As far as the submission of the Revenue is concerned, that
the provisions of the Act, and in particular Section 144 (C) (13), do
not prescribe a specific time limit for the 1 st Respondent to
complete the assessment within the specified time when the case
is of a remand by the Tribunal is concerned, we are of the view
that the submission is not sustainable in view of the clear and
unambiguous language of Section 144(C)(13) of the Act. If the
submission of the Revenue is accepted, then the entire scheme
and mandate of Section 144(C)(13) of the Act will be made
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
redundant. The Act does not make any distinction between
ordinary cases and cases on remand. The provisions of Section
144(C)(13) apply equally to both situations.
28. Therefore, 1st Respondent cannot act beyond the mandate of
Section 144 (C) (13) and also contrary to the directions given by
the DRP in sub-section (5) of Section 144 (C) of the Act. The
reason being, Section 144(C)(13) mandates that the 1 st
Respondent ought to complete the assessment in conformity
with the direction of the DRP, that too within the strict timelines.
Further, Section 144 C (10) makes a clear provision that the
directions of the DRP are binding on the Assessing Officer. Section
144 C (10) reads as follows:
"144 C (10) Every direction issued by the Dispute
Resolution panel shall be binding on the Assessing
officer."
29. Further, in the present case, the directions passed by the
DRP on 19th March, 2020, also include the direction to the 1 st
Respondent that the 1st Respondent shall give effect to the
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
directions of the DRP as per the provisions of Section 144(C)(13)
of the Act.
30. The scheme of the Section clearly provides that the Assessing
Officer is bound by the directions and he has to complete the
assessment within the timelines provided by the Section. The
reason for imposing a strict timeline in the Section is that the
Assessing Officer must follow the directions issued by the DRP,
which are provided for his guidance in completing the assessment.
It is a settled principle of law that, where a statute requires
something to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in
that manner. The statutory provisions cannot be waived or
deviated from. If the argument of the Revenue is accepted, then
we will have to omit the mandatory provision from Section 144
(13) while reading the Section. Such a route of interpretation is
not permissible. All the words in the statute will have to be read
and given a meaning.
31. Therefore, we reject the submission of the Revenue that in
case of remand proceedings, the timelines provided by Section 144
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
C (13) are not applicable and the assessment can be completed
beyond the time limits provided by the section.
32. In view thereof, it is clear that the proceedings pending
before the 1st Respondent concerning the transfer pricing addition
of Rs.5,26,86,111.00 are barred by limitation and now outside the
purview of Section 144(C)(13) of the Act. The 1 st Respondents
cannot now invoke the provisions of Section 144 (C) (13) of the Act
and complete the assessment because the time frame mandated by
the Section has already expired. It is accordingly so declared.
33. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment of
Rs.5,26,86,111.00 is treated as non est and ordered accordingly.
The 1st Respondent is ordered and directed to recompute the
Petitioner's total income for the AY 2010-2011 by excluding the
transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.5,26,86,111.00. The refund,
along with the statutory interest under Section 244(A) of the Act, if
any, shall be paid to the Petitioner within eight weeks from the
date of uploading of this order on the High Court's Website.
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
24.os.wpl.11226.2025 (final 6.10.25).doc
34. Rule is made absolute in the above terms and the Writ
Petition is also disposed of in the terms thereof. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
35. Though we have disposed of the Writ Petition, we place it on
Board for reporting compliance on 15th December, 2025.
36. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/
Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on
production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
OCTOBER 10, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
