My transfer pricing dispute has been settled under MAP and I want to withdraw my appeal. The department has its own cross-appeal before the Tribunal. Does that survive?
It does not. Once the transfer pricing adjustment that is the subject matter of both appeals has been resolved under the Mutual Agreement Procedure and the assessee is permitted to withdraw, the department's cross-appeal on the same adjustment has nothing left to bite on. The Tribunal dismissed both appeals.
Decided by the ITAT (Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member and Smt. Beena Pillai, Judicial Member) on 2021-08-11, reported as ITA No. 1073/Bang/2018 and ITA No. 1185/Bang/2018, assessment year 2012-13 (cross-appeals against the order of CIT(A)-5, Bengaluru dated 27 December 2017; the assessee's own appeal, ITA No. 1073/Bang/2018, is against JCIT (OSD), Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore). No reporter citation was printed on the page read.. It bears on section Rule 44G, section 92CA of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals and Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
A MAP resolution disposes of the taxpayer's grievance but practitioners are regularly told that the Revenue's cross-appeal is a separate proceeding that must still be fought. This is a short, direct order saying the opposite, and it is the order to put on the record when you move to withdraw.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Cross-appeals for assessment year 2012-13 against the order of the CIT(A)-5, Bengaluru dated 27 December 2017. The assessee's grounds went to the transfer pricing adjustment; the Revenue's grounds went to the working capital adjustment. By letter dated 2 August 2021 the assessee informed the Tribunal that the dispute had been resolved under the Mutual Agreement Procedure as per Rule 44G of the Income-tax Rules. The Tribunal recorded that the Transfer Pricing Officer had made an adjustment of Rs. 4,26,74,970 and that the competent authorities had determined the adjustment at Rs. 1,52,87,317.
Both appeals were dismissed. The operative paragraph reads: 'We heard Ld. D.R. and perused the record. Since the issue relating to transfer pricing adjustment has been resolved under MAP, we allow the assessee to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the department will also not survive. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue.' (para 3). Para 4: 'In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.' The department's appeal is not separately reasoned; its failure is put as a consequence of the MAP resolution, in one sentence.
The reasoning is short and turns entirely on subject matter. The competent authorities had determined the very adjustment that was in issue in both appeals, reducing it from Rs. 4,26,74,970 to Rs. 1,52,87,317. With that adjustment settled bilaterally there was no live controversy for the Tribunal to decide, so the assessee's withdrawal was permitted and the department's appeal, which attacked the relief given on the same adjustment, was treated as not surviving in consequence and dismissed (para 3). Nothing further is said about the Revenue's grounds.
Consequently, the appeal filed by the department will also not survive.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppIt does not. Once the transfer pricing adjustment that is the subject matter of both appeals has been resolved under the Mutual Agreement Procedure and the assessee is permitted to withdraw, the department's cross-appeal on the same adjustment has nothing left to bite on. The Tribunal dismissed both appeals. This was decided by the ITAT (Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member and Smt. Beena Pillai, Judicial Member) and bears on section Rule 44G, section 92CA of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 1073/Bang/2018 and ITA No. 1185/Bang/2018, assessment year 2012-13 (cross-appeals against the order of CIT(A)-5, Bengaluru dated 27 December 2017; the assessee's own appeal, ITA No. 1073/Bang/2018, is against JCIT (OSD), Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore). No reporter citation was printed on the page read.. A MAP resolution disposes of the taxpayer's grievance but practitioners are regularly told that the Revenue's cross-appeal is a separate proceeding that must still be fought. This is a short, direct order saying the opposite, and it is the order to put on the record when you move to withdraw. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Get the competent authorities' MAP resolution letter and the figure it fixes, and file it before the Bench with a letter seeking leave to withdraw the transfer pricing grounds.
Cross-appeals for assessment year 2012-13 against the order of the CIT(A)-5, Bengaluru dated 27 December 2017. The assessee's grounds went to the transfer pricing adjustment; the Revenue's grounds went to the working capital adjustment. By letter dated 2 August 2021 the assessee informed the Tribunal that the dispute had been resolved under the Mutual Agreement Procedure as per Rule 44G of the Income-tax Rules. The Tribunal recorded that the Transfer Pricing Officer had made an adjustment of Rs. 4,26,74,970 and that the competent authorities had determined the adjustment at Rs. 1,52,87,317. The matter was decided on 2021-08-11 by the ITAT (Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member and Smt. Beena Pillai, Judicial Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. Both appeals were dismissed. The operative paragraph reads: 'We heard Ld. D.R. and perused the record. Since the issue relating to transfer pricing adjustment has been resolved under MAP, we allow the assessee to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the department will also not survive. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue.' (para 3). Para 4: 'In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.' The department's appeal is not separately reasoned; its failure is put as a consequence of the MAP resolution, in one sentence.
The reasoning is short and turns entirely on subject matter. The competent authorities had determined the very adjustment that was in issue in both appeals, reducing it from Rs. 4,26,74,970 to Rs. 1,52,87,317. With that adjustment settled bilaterally there was no live controversy for the Tribunal to decide, so the assessee's withdrawal was permitted and the department's appeal, which attacked the relief given on the same adjustment, was treated as not surviving in consequence and dismissed (para 3). Nothing further is said about the Revenue's grounds. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Consequently, the appeal filed by the department will also not survive."
It was decided by the ITAT on 2021-08-11 and is reported as ITA No. 1073/Bang/2018 and ITA No. 1185/Bang/2018, assessment year 2012-13 (cross-appeals against the order of CIT(A)-5, Bengaluru dated 27 December 2017; the assessee's own appeal, ITA No. 1073/Bang/2018, is against JCIT (OSD), Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore). No reporter citation was printed on the page read.. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section Rule 44G, section 92CA, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. Both appeals were dismissed. The operative paragraph reads: 'We heard Ld. D.R. and perused the record. Since the issue relating to transfer pricing adjustment has been resolved under MAP, we allow the assessee to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the department will also not survive. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue.' (para 3). Para 4: 'In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.' The department's appeal is not separately reasoned; its failure is put as a consequence of the MAP resolution, in one sentence. It arises in Appeals and Assessment & Scrutiny matters, on section Rule 44G, section 92CA of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member and Smt. Beena Pillai, Judicial Member. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. State in that letter that the dispute has been resolved under MAP as per Rule 44G, which is the recital the Tribunal acted on here. Ask expressly for a direction that the department's cross-appeal on the same adjustment does not survive, and cite this order. Check that the MAP figure covers every transfer pricing ground in both appeals; grounds outside the resolution (here the Revenue had a working capital adjustment ground) survive only so far as they are outside the settled adjustment. Keep the withdrawal confined to the MAP-covered grounds so that any corporate tax grounds in the same appeal are not swept away with them.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. No later decision applying, distinguishing or doubting this order was located. It is a short disposal order rather than a reasoned decision on a point of law, and it is unlikely to be separately reported; treat it as an illustration of the practice rather than as a considered ruling. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The order is very brief. It does not set out the treaty involved, the identity of the treaty partner or the date of the competent authorities' resolution, and it does not say what became of the Revenue's working capital adjustment ground apart from dismissing the appeal. The recital of the MAP resolution and the figures are at para 2, the operative sentences at para 3 and the disposal at para 4. The Tribunal's own text names the Members as Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member and Smt. Beena Pillai, Judicial Member, and gives 11 August 2021 as the date of pronouncement, which matches the discovery record. A later reading of the order against this entry corrected the cause title - the Revenue's designation is JCIT (OSD) / ACIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore and not Circle 7(1)(1), Bengaluru as first recorded here - and corrected the description of the holding, which had put the department's appeal as something the Tribunal decided in terms when the order states it as a consequence in a single sentence at para 3. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Both appeals were dismissed. The operative paragraph reads: 'We heard Ld. D.R. and perused the record. Since the issue relating to transfer pricing adjustment has been resolved under MAP, we allow the assessee to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the department will also not survive. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue.' (para 3). Para 4: 'In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.' The department's appeal is not separately reasoned; its failure is put as a consequence of the MAP resolution, in one sentence.
TaxSphere, “ACIT v Rambus Chip Technologies (India) P. Ltd.”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/rambus-chip-technologies-map-resolution-department-appeal-does-not-survive/ (validity last checked 2026-09-16)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Your MAP resolution settles the transactions with the treaty-country associated enterprise. Can the same treatment be claimed for your associated enterprises in other countries?
A bilateral APA signed years after the assessment fixes my margin for a run of years and MAP has settled the rest. What do I do with the appeals still pending for those years, and do my other grounds go with them?
The competent authorities have settled your case under the mutual agreement procedure and the department still will not give effect to it. What order will the court make?
Your MAP resolution has come through while cross appeals are pending before the Tribunal. What happens to the appeals, and who has to withdraw what?
