Section 153(1)

Section 153(1) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 153(1), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• DLF Home Developers Ltd v National Faceless Assessment Centre High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  Our amalgamation was sanctioned by the NCLT after we had already filed the return, and the AO is pressing on with the assessment on that pre-merger return. Does s.170A stop him?
  The Delhi High Court took the prima facie view that it does. Section 170A is a non-obstante provision obliging the successor in a business reorganisation to file a modified return in the prescribed form and manner, and if the time for filing that modified return has not yet run out, the Assessing Officer cannot proceed with the assessment on the basis of a pre-merger return. The Court stayed the assessment until the end date for the modified return, and on the modified return being filed, disposed of the petition directing that the assessment proceed having regard to it.
• Pfizer Healthcare India P Ltd v JCIT High CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  The TPO's order was one day late. Does that kill the transfer pricing addition?
  Yes. The sixty days run backwards from the s.153 limitation date, excluding that date itself, so an order passed on the sixtieth day is out of time. The requirement is mandatory, not directory, limitation goes to jurisdiction, and an order a single day late is non est along with everything built on it. That was the law when the case was decided and it remains the reasoning of the judgment, but as at 8 September 2026 the arithmetic no longer holds where the limitation date is 31 March or 31 December: s.92CA(3AA), inserted retrospectively from 1 June 2007 by the Finance Act 2026, fixes the count for those two dates and gives the officer one day more. It says nothing about a 30 September expiry, where this decision still governs.
• Mondelez India Foods P. Ltd v Addl CIT ITATHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  The TPO's order is dated one day inside the sixty-day window as I count it, but the department counts it differently. Is the order time barred, and if it is, does the assessment fall with it?
  On the counting the Tribunal applied Pfizer Healthcare and the Madras High Court Division Bench in DCIT v Saint Gobain India: the s.153 expiry date is EXCLUDED, sixty days are counted back from it, and the TPO must pass his order BEFORE the sixtieth day. On that arithmetic a 31 March 2014 assessment deadline meant a TPO order by 29 January 2014, and the order of 30 January 2014 was barred by one day. THAT ARITHMETIC HAS SINCE BEEN REVERSED RETROSPECTIVELY: s.92CA(3AA), inserted by the Finance Act 2026 (Act 4 of 2026) with effect from 1 June 2007 and expressly notwithstanding any judgment of any court, deems the sixty days to be counted so that a 31 March (non-leap year) deadline permits a TPO order up to 30 January, a 31 March (leap year) deadline up to 31 January, and a 31 December deadline up to 1 November. The second holding survives the amendment: where the TPO's order IS invalid, there is no order under s.92CA(3), so there is no 'eligible assessee' within s.144C(15)(b), no reference to the DRP could be made, and the subsequent proceedings are without jurisdiction.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.