ITAT: DRP Route Cannot Save Time-Barred TP Assessments Under Section 153:

ITAT: DRP Route Cannot Save Time-Barred TP Assessments Under Section 153

ITAT quashes TP assessments of tollway companies, holding that Section 144C does not override the outer limitation under Section 153 despite DRP directions

ITAT Quashes TP Assessments of Tollway SPVs as Time-Barred Despite DRP Route

authorMeetu KumaridateDec 23, 2025
Last update on Dec 23, 2025
ITAT: DRP Route Cannot Save Time-Barred TP Assessments Under Section 153 M/s Western UP Tollway Ltd. and M/s Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd., infrastructure SPVs engaged in toll road projects, were subjected to transfer pricing assessments for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19. Following reference to the TPO, draft assessment orders were issued, objections were filed before the DRP, and final assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 144C(13) and 144B, making transfer pricing additions mainly on interest paid on non-convertible debentures. Before the ITAT, the assessees raised additional legal grounds contending that the final assessment orders were barred by limitation under Section 153, having been passed beyond the outer time limit prescribed under Section 153(1) read with Section 153(4). The Revenue opposed admission of the additional grounds, arguing that Section 144C is a self-contained code with its own limitation and also relied on COVID-related extensions granted by the Supreme Court.
Mechanical 153C Invocation Fails: ITAT Quashes Assessments Based on Third-Party Diary
Question of Law: Whether final assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) are valid if issued beyond the outer limitation prescribed under Section 153(1) read with Section 153(4).
ITAT Quashes PCIT’s Revision: Section 263 Cannot Override Valid 153D Approval in Search Assessments
Tribunal's Decision: The ITAT admitted the additional grounds, holding that pure questions of law can be raised at any stage. On merits, the Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive, and Section 144C does not override or extend the outer limitation prescribed under Section 153. The non-obstante clause in Section 144C(13) merely requires the AO to pass the final order within one month of receiving the DRP directions and does not extend the statutory time limit. Relying on Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. and Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd., the Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s reliance on COVID-related extensions, holding that such extensions do not apply to original assessment proceedings. As the final assessment orders were passed beyond the permissible limitation period, they were quashed as time-barred. Liberty was granted to the parties to seek revival of the appeals depending on the outcome of the pending issue before the Supreme Court. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2160
Up Next

Loading suggestions…