The Assessing Officer has forwarded a draft order to our partnership firm, which is non-resident but is not a company, and there is no Transfer Pricing Officer's order in the case. Is the firm an eligible assessee at all, and does it matter which assessment year we are in?
It matters a great deal which year you are in. As s.144C(15)(b) stands on the departmental edition stamped Year 2025 it reads: "(b) 'eligible assessee' means,— (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company:". Sub-clause (ii) in that form was substituted by Act No. 12 of 2020 with effect from 1 April 2020 — footnote 97 on the departmental edition stamped Year 2021 reads verbatim "Sub. by the Act No. 12 of 2020, w.e.f. 1-4-2020.", and footnote 91 on the Year 2022 edition repeats it. Before that substitution, and as printed on the editions stamped Year 2009 and Year 2019 (No. 2), sub-clause (ii) read simply "any foreign company". So a non-resident firm, a non-resident individual, a non-resident association of persons — any non-resident that is not a company — became an eligible assessee in its own right on 1 April 2020 and was not one before, unless it was brought in by limb (i). Limb (i) is independent of status: it catches ANY person, resident or not, company or not, where the variation in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of an order of the Transfer Pricing Officer under s.92CA(3). Two things were added with effect from 1 September 2024 by Act No. 15 of 2024: a proviso to clause (b) reading "Provided that such eligible assessee shall not include person referred to in sub-section (1) of section 158BA or other person referred to in section 158BD.", and s.144C(16), "The provisions of this section shall not apply to any proceedings under Chapter XIV-B."
Decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text) on 2020-04-01, reported as Section 144C(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, heading "Reference to dispute resolution panel", transcribed from incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-144c-16 (Year: 2025), with the same clause read on incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-144c-11 (Year: 2021, footnote 97), /w/section-144c-12 (Year: 2022, footnote 91), /w/section-144c-13 (Year: 2023) and /w/section-144c-14 (Year: 2024 (No. 1)), and with the pre-substitution text read on /w/section-144c (Year: 2009) and /w/section-144c-10 (Year: 2019 (No. 2)). It bears on section 144C, section 144C(15), section 144C(15)(b), section 144C(1), section 144C(16), section 92CA, section 92CA(3), section 92C, section 92BA, section 158BA, section 158BD, section 253, section 253(1), section 246A of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny, Appeals, How Tax Law Is Read and Residence & Treaty Benefit matters.
This is the clause on which jurisdiction under the whole of s.144C turns, in both directions. Where there is no eligible assessee there can be no draft order, and an officer who forwards one and a Panel that entertains objections on it are acting outside the section; equally, where there IS an eligible assessee, the draft order is a condition of the officer's power to make the variation at all and a final order passed without one is open to attack on jurisdiction, for which the library already holds SHL India v DCIT, Transworld Garnet and Vijay Television v DRP. The date is the trap. A practitioner who carries the definition he learnt before 2020 will tell a non-resident individual or a non-resident firm that it is outside s.144C, and for assessment year 2020-21 onward that is wrong. A practitioner who reads the definition off the departmental page the search engine puts second, /w/section-144c-10, will make the same mistake, because that page is stamped Year 2019 (No. 2) and prints "any foreign company". In the other direction, limb (i) is the one that does most of the work in practice and it is easy to under-read: it does not require the assessee to be non-resident or foreign at all. A resident Indian company whose draft order contains a transfer pricing adjustment consequent on a s.92CA(3) order is an eligible assessee under limb (i), and is entitled to the draft order and to the Panel. What the section does NOT say is equally worth holding on to: limb (i) is keyed to a variation arising as a consequence of an order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under s.92CA(3), so where no reference was made, or where the reference itself was bad because the transaction was not within Chapter X at all — the point this library takes on s.92BA — limb (i) is not engaged and the eligibility has to be found, if at all, in limb (ii).
Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
As printed on the departmental page stamped Year 2025, section 144C(15) reads: "For the purposes of this section,— (a) 'Dispute Resolution Panel' means a collegium comprising of three Principal Commissioners or Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board for this purpose; (b) 'eligible assessee' means,— (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company:", followed, in square brackets against footnote marker [2], by "Provided that such eligible assessee shall not include person referred to in sub-section (1) of section 158BA or other person referred to in section 158BD." and by sub-section (16), "The provisions of this section shall not apply to any proceedings under Chapter XIV-B." The same clause (15)(b) is printed on the editions stamped Year 2021, Year 2022, Year 2023 and Year 2024 (No. 1) with sub-clause (ii) in the same substituted form, the Year 2021 and Year 2022 editions carrying a footnote marker against sub-clause (ii). On the edition stamped Year 2019 (No. 2), and on the original edition stamped Year 2009, clause (15)(b) reads instead: "(b) 'eligible assessee' means,— (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any foreign company." The Year 2009 edition additionally prints clause (15)(a) as "a collegium comprising of three Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board for this purpose", without the words "Principal Commissioners or".
Not a judgment. The statutory position is that "eligible assessee" for the purposes of s.144C means, by limb (i), any person in whose case the variation referred to in s.144C(1) arises as a consequence of an order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under s.92CA(3), and, by limb (ii), any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company; that limb (ii) in that form was substituted by Act No. 12 of 2020 with effect from 1 April 2020 and before that date read "any foreign company"; and that by a proviso to clause (b) and by s.144C(16), both inserted by Act No. 15 of 2024 with effect from 1 September 2024, an eligible assessee does not include a person referred to in s.158BA(1) or other person referred to in s.158BD, and the section does not apply to any proceedings under Chapter XIV-B.
Not a judgment; no judicial reasoning is stated for the section.
(b) "eligible assessee" means,— (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company:
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 matters a great deal which year you are in. As s.144C(15)(b) stands on the departmental edition stamped Year 2025 it reads: "(b) 'eligible assessee' means,— (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company:". Sub-clause (ii) in that form was substituted by Act No. 12 of 2020 with effect from 1 April 2020 — footnote 97 on the departmental edition stamped Year 2021 reads verbatim "Sub. by the Act No. 12 of 2020, w.e.f. 1-4-2020.", and footnote 91 on the Year 2022 edition repeats it. Before that substitution, and as printed on the editions stamped Year 2009 and Year 2019 (No. 2), sub-clause (ii) read simply "any foreign company". So a non-resident firm, a non-resident individual, a non-resident association of persons — any non-resident that is not a company — became an eligible assessee in its own right on 1 April 2020 and was not one before, unless it was brought in by limb (i). Limb (i) is independent of status: it catches ANY person, resident or not, company or not, where the variation in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of an order of the Transfer Pricing Officer under s.92CA(3). Two things were added with effect from 1 September 2024 by Act No. 15 of 2024: a proviso to clause (b) reading "Provided that such eligible assessee shall not include person referred to in sub-section (1) of section 158BA or other person referred to in section 158BD.", and s.144C(16), "The provisions of this section shall not apply to any proceedings under Chapter XIV-B." This was decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text) and bears on section 144C, section 144C(15), section 144C(15)(b), section 144C(1), section 144C(16), section 92CA, section 92CA(3), section 92C, section 92BA, section 158BA, section 158BD, section 253, section 253(1), section 246A of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Section 144C(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, heading "Reference to dispute resolution panel", transcribed from incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-144c-16 (Year: 2025), with the same clause read on incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-144c-11 (Year: 2021, footnote 97), /w/section-144c-12 (Year: 2022, footnote 91), /w/section-144c-13 (Year: 2023) and /w/section-144c-14 (Year: 2024 (No. 1)), and with the pre-substitution text read on /w/section-144c (Year: 2009) and /w/section-144c-10 (Year: 2019 (No. 2)). This is the clause on which jurisdiction under the whole of s.144C turns, in both directions. Where there is no eligible assessee there can be no draft order, and an officer who forwards one and a Panel that entertains objections on it are acting outside the section; equally, where there IS an eligible assessee, the draft order is a condition of the officer's power to make the variation at all and a final order passed without one is open to attack on jurisdiction, for which the library already holds SHL India v DCIT, Transworld Garnet and Vijay Television v DRP. The date is the trap. A practitioner who carries the definition he learnt before 2020 will tell a non-resident individual or a non-resident firm that it is outside s.144C, and for assessment year 2020-21 onward that is wrong. A practitioner who reads the definition off the departmental page the search engine puts second, /w/section-144c-10, will make the same mistake, because that page is stamped Year 2019 (No. 2) and prints "any foreign company". In the other direction, limb (i) is the one that does most of the work in practice and it is easy to under-read: it does not require the assessee to be non-resident or foreign at all. A resident Indian company whose draft order contains a transfer pricing adjustment consequent on a s.92CA(3) order is an eligible assessee under limb (i), and is entitled to the draft order and to the Panel. What the section does NOT say is equally worth holding on to: limb (i) is keyed to a variation arising as a consequence of an order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under s.92CA(3), so where no reference was made, or where the reference itself was bad because the transaction was not within Chapter X at all — the point this library takes on s.92BA — limb (i) is not engaged and the eligibility has to be found, if at all, in limb (ii). If it applies to you, the first step is this: Fix the assessment year before you answer the question. For a variation proposed on or after 1 April 2020, a non-resident that is not a company is an eligible assessee under limb (ii) in its own right; before that date limb (ii) reached only a foreign company.
As printed on the departmental page stamped Year 2025, section 144C(15) reads: "For the purposes of this section,— (a) 'Dispute Resolution Panel' means a collegium comprising of three Principal Commissioners or Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board for this purpose; (b) 'eligible assessee' means,— (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company:", followed, in square brackets against footnote marker [2], by "Provided that such eligible assessee shall not include person referred to in sub-section (1) of section 158BA or other person referred to in section 158BD." and by sub-section (16), "The provisions of this section shall not apply to any proceedings under Chapter XIV-B." The same clause (15)(b) is printed on the editions stamped Year 2021, Year 2022, Year 2023 and Year 2024 (No. 1) with sub-clause (ii) in the same substituted form, the Year 2021 and Year 2022 editions carrying a footnote marker against sub-clause (ii). On the edition stamped Year 2019 (No. 2), and on the original edition stamped Year 2009, clause (15)(b) reads instead: "(b) 'eligible assessee' means,— (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any foreign company." The Year 2009 edition additionally prints clause (15)(a) as "a collegium comprising of three Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board for this purpose", without the words "Principal Commissioners or". The matter was decided on 2020-04-01 by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text). On those facts the CBDT Circulars & Instructions held as follows. Not a judgment. The statutory position is that "eligible assessee" for the purposes of s.144C means, by limb (i), any person in whose case the variation referred to in s.144C(1) arises as a consequence of an order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under s.92CA(3), and, by limb (ii), any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company; that limb (ii) in that form was substituted by Act No. 12 of 2020 with effect from 1 April 2020 and before that date read "any foreign company"; and that by a proviso to clause (b) and by s.144C(16), both inserted by Act No. 15 of 2024 with effect from 1 September 2024, an eligible assessee does not include a person referred to in s.158BA(1) or other person referred to in s.158BD, and the section does not apply to any proceedings under Chapter XIV-B.
Not a judgment; no judicial reasoning is stated for the section. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "(b) "eligible assessee" means,— (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company:"
It was decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions on 2020-04-01 and is reported as Section 144C(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, heading "Reference to dispute resolution panel", transcribed from incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-144c-16 (Year: 2025), with the same clause read on incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-144c-11 (Year: 2021, footnote 97), /w/section-144c-12 (Year: 2022, footnote 91), /w/section-144c-13 (Year: 2023) and /w/section-144c-14 (Year: 2024 (No. 1)), and with the pre-substitution text read on /w/section-144c (Year: 2009) and /w/section-144c-10 (Year: 2019 (No. 2)). Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them. A CBDT circular or instruction binds officers of the department but not the assessee and not the courts. Where a circular helps you, you may hold the department to it. Where it hurts you, it cannot override the Act or a judgment. On section 144C, section 144C(15), section 144C(15)(b), section 144C(1), section 144C(16), section 92CA, section 92CA(3), section 92C, section 92BA, section 158BA, section 158BD, section 253, section 253(1), section 246A, 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 cuts both ways and is cited by both sides. Not a judgment. The statutory position is that "eligible assessee" for the purposes of s.144C means, by limb (i), any person in whose case the variation referred to in s.144C(1) arises as a consequence of an order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under s.92CA(3), and, by limb (ii), any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company; that limb (ii) in that form was substituted by Act No. 12 of 2020 with effect from 1 April 2020 and before that date read "any foreign company"; and that by a proviso to clause (b) and by s.144C(16), both inserted by Act No. 15 of 2024 with effect from 1 September 2024, an eligible assessee does not include a person referred to in s.158BA(1) or other person referred to in s.158BD, and the section does not apply to any proceedings under Chapter XIV-B. It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny, Appeals, How Tax Law Is Read and Residence & Treaty Benefit matters, on section 144C, section 144C(15), section 144C(15)(b), section 144C(1), section 144C(16), section 92CA, section 92CA(3), section 92C, section 92BA, section 158BA, section 158BD, section 253, section 253(1), section 246A of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Not applicable — statutory text. 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. Check limb (i) independently of status. Any person, resident or non-resident, company or not, whose draft-order variation arises as a consequence of an order of the Transfer Pricing Officer under s.92CA(3) is an eligible assessee. Where the case is put on limb (i), make the officer identify the s.92CA(3) order and show that the variation arises as a consequence of it. If the transaction was never within Chapter X — see this library on the omission of s.92BA clause (i) — the reference and the adjustment carry the jurisdictional defect with them. Do not read the definition off incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-144c-10 or /w/section-144c. Both are historical editions, stamped Year 2019 (No. 2) and Year 2009, and both print sub-clause (ii) as "any foreign company". For an assessment under Chapter XIV-B, check the proviso to s.144C(15)(b) and s.144C(16), both inserted with effect from 1 September 2024: a person referred to in s.158BA(1) or s.158BD is excluded from the definition and the section does not apply to Chapter XIV-B proceedings. Where there is no eligible assessee, take the point at the threshold. Without an eligible assessee there is no draft order to forward, no objection to file and nothing for the Panel to direct.
Still good law. The definition as stated is current so far as I could establish. Seven departmental editions carrying clause (15)(b) were read, with "Year:" stamps of 2009, 2019 (No. 2), 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 (No. 1) and 2025; the two earliest print "any foreign company" and the five later ones print "any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company", which is consistent with the substitution footnoted on the Year 2021 and Year 2022 editions as made by Act No. 12 of 2020 with effect from 1 April 2020. Year 2025 is the most recent edition I reached; I probed no suffix above /w/section-144c-16, so a later amendment cannot be excluded. The pre-substitution wording is taken from the text of the two historical editions and not from any footnote, because no departmental page I reached prints the substituted words in a footnote. The proviso to clause (b) and sub-section (16) are printed on the Year 2025 edition in square brackets against footnote marker [2], and footnote 2 on that page, read on a separate fetch of the page's footnote list, states in full: "Ins. by Act No. 15 of 2024, w.e.f. 1-9-2024." That footnote is the whole of my source for Act No. 15 of 2024 and for the effective date of 1 September 2024; the short title of that Act is not verified from a government source. No Finance Act, Gazette notification or judgment was read on this pass. 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.
Eight departmental editions of s.144C were opened and their "Year:" stamps recorded: /w/section-144c (Year: 2009), /w/section-144c-5 (Year: 2014), /w/section-144c-10 (Year: 2019 (No. 2)), /w/section-144c-11 (Year: 2021), /w/section-144c-12 (Year: 2022), /w/section-144c-13 (Year: 2023), /w/section-144c-14 (Year: 2024 (No. 1)) and /w/section-144c-16 (Year: 2025). All carry the heading "Reference to dispute resolution panel". Year 2025 is the most recent edition reached and the text in this entry is taken from it. The URL suffix is not a version number: /w/section-144c-10 carries a LATER year stamp than /w/section-144c-5 but /w/section-253-46 carries Year 1974 while /w/section-253-63 carries Year 2024 (No. 2), so no ordering can be read off the suffix. STALE-PAGE WARNING, found this pass. /w/section-144c (Year: 2009) and /w/section-144c-10 (Year: 2019 (No. 2)) both print s.144C(1) with the words "any variation IN THE INCOME OR LOSS RETURNED which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee", and both print s.144C(15)(b)(ii) as "any foreign company". Both readings are out of date. Footnote 95 on /w/section-144c-11 (Year: 2021) reads verbatim "Words \"in the income or loss returned\" Omtt. by the Act No. 12 of 2020, w.e.f. 1-4-2020." and footnote 97 on the same page reads verbatim "Sub. by the Act No. 12 of 2020, w.e.f. 1-4-2020." against sub-clause (ii). The Year 2025 edition prints (1) without those words and (15)(b)(ii) as "any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company". /w/section-144c-10 is the second hit the departmental search returns for this section and it is a trap: a reader who takes the definition off it will conclude that a non-resident individual or firm is not an eligible assessee, which has been wrong since 1 April 2020. /w/section-144c (Year: 2009) also prints s.144C(8) with NO Explanation and s.144C(15)(a) as "three Commissioners of Income-tax" rather than "three Principal Commissioners or Commissioners of Income-tax". FOOTNOTE INVENTORY, transcribed verbatim from the editions named. /w/section-144c (Year: 2009), one footnote: "15a. Inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, w.r.e.f. 1-4-2009." /w/section-144c-5 (Year: 2014), footnote against the Explanation to sub-section (8): "76. Inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, w.r.e.f. 1-4-2009." /w/section-144c-10 (Year: 2019 (No. 2)): the "Footnotes" heading is printed but the list under it is EMPTY. /w/section-144c-11 (Year: 2021), three footnotes: "95. Words \"in the income or loss returned\" Omtt. by the Act No. 12 of 2020, w.e.f. 1-4-2020."; "96. Sub-sections (14B) to (14D) Ins. by the Act. No. 38 of 2020, w.e.f. 1-11-2020."; "97. Sub. by the Act No. 12 of 2020, w.e.f. 1-4-2020." /w/section-144c-12 (Year: 2022), one footnote: "91. Sub. by the Act No. 12 of 2020, w.e.f. 1-4-2020." /w/section-144c-13 (Year: 2023), one footnote: "12. Substituted for \"2022\" by the Finance Act, 2022, w.e.f. 1-4-2022." /w/section-144c-14 (Year: 2024 (No. 1)), one footnote: "12. Substituted for \"2024\" by the Finance Act, 2024, w.e.f. 1-4-2024. Earlier \"2024\" was substituted for \"2022\" by the Finance Act, 2022, w.e.f. 1-4-2022." /w/section-144c-16 (Year: 2025), two footnotes: "1. Omtt. by Act 2025, w.e.f. 1-4-2025. Prior to its omission, the proviso, as amended by Act No. 6 of 2022, w.e.f. 1-4-2022 and Act No. 8 of 2024, w.e.f. 1-4-2024, read as under: \"Provided that no direction shall be issued after the 31st day of March, 2025.\""; and "2. Ins. by Act No. 15 of 2024, w.e.f. 1-9-2024." I have NOT verified the short title of any of Act No. 12 of 2020, Act No. 38 of 2020, Act No. 6 of 2022, Act No. 8 of 2024, Act No. 15 of 2024, Act No. 25 of 2014, Act No. 20 of 2015 or Act No. 28 of 2016 against a government source; the Act numbers are what the departmental pages print and are what this library states. Footnote 1 on the Year 2025 page names the omitting Act only as "Act 2025", which is how it is printed. DEAD URLS IN THE DEPARTMENTAL SEARCH INDEX. Three .htm addresses were returned by WebSearch on incometaxindia.gov.in and every one of them returned HTTP 404 on WebFetch: /Acts/Income-tax%20Act,%201961/2013/102120000000027075.htm (indexed as "Reference to dispute resolution panel."), /Acts/Income-tax%20Act,%201961/2021/102120000000077655.htm and /Acts/Income-tax%20Act,%201961/2019/102120000000073641.htm (both indexed as "Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal"). The content of those three pages is not available to me and nothing in this entry rests on them. WHAT I COULD NOT ESTABLISH ON THIS PASS. I could not source the pre-substitution wording of s.144C(15)(b)(ii) from a FOOTNOTE — no departmental edition I reached prints a footnote setting out the substituted words. The pre-2020 wording "any foreign company" is stated here on the strength of the TEXT as printed on two historical editions, /w/section-144c (Year: 2009) and /w/section-144c-10 (Year: 2019 (No. 2)), read against footnote 97 on /w/section-144c-11 (Year: 2021), "Sub. by the Act No. 12 of 2020, w.e.f. 1-4-2020.", which carries the fact and the date of substitution but not the old words. That is a two-step inference and the reader should know it is one. I did not read the Finance Act 2020 or any Gazette notification, and the short title of Act No. 12 of 2020 is NOT verified from a government source; the entry states the Act number, which is what the pages print. The proviso to clause (b) and sub-section (16) are printed on the Year 2025 page in square brackets against footnote marker [2], and footnote 2 on that page reads "Ins. by Act No. 15 of 2024, w.e.f. 1-9-2024."; the short title of Act No. 15 of 2024 is likewise not verified. 'decided_on' is 2020-04-01, the effective date of the substitution of sub-clause (ii), which is what this entry is about; it is not a decision date, and 'bench' and 'favours' are inapplicable to a statutory entry. I read no judgment this pass and make no statement about what any case named here holds. 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.
Not a judgment. The statutory position is that "eligible assessee" for the purposes of s.144C means, by limb (i), any person in whose case the variation referred to in s.144C(1) arises as a consequence of an order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under s.92CA(3), and, by limb (ii), any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company; that limb (ii) in that form was substituted by Act No. 12 of 2020 with effect from 1 April 2020 and before that date read "any foreign company"; and that by a proviso to clause (b) and by s.144C(16), both inserted by Act No. 15 of 2024 with effect from 1 September 2024, an eligible assessee does not include a person referred to in s.158BA(1) or other person referred to in s.158BD, and the section does not apply to any proceedings under Chapter XIV-B.
TaxSphere, “Statutory position — s.144C(15)(b): who is an "eligible assessee", the two limbs, and the substitution by Act No. 12 of 2020 with effect from 1 April 2020 that brought in every non-resident not being a company”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-144c-15-b-who-is-an-eligible-assessee-and-the-finance-act-2020-widening/ (validity last checked 2026-09-17)
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.
The Assessing Officer has served a final assessment order on our foreign company raising a transfer pricing addition, without ever serving a draft order. Was he obliged to serve one first, and what was I supposed to do with it if he had?
We are considering objecting to a draft order. Can the Dispute Resolution Panel make our position worse, can it send the matter back for fresh enquiry, and if we lose before it, do we appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) or straight to the Tribunal?
We received a draft order on 12 March. Nobody objected. When was the final order due, and if we had objected, by when must the Dispute Resolution Panel have issued its directions and by when must the officer have given effect to them?
The officer took the TPO's adjustment straight into a final order without giving me a draft order. The department says s.292B cures it. Does it?
