IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.946/Ahd/2016 Assessment year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. IQVIA RDS (India) Private Ltd., of Income Tax, [formerly Quintiles Research (India)

Circle 3(1)(2), Private Ltd.], Ahmedabad. II Floor, Etamin Block, Prestige Technology Park-II, Sarjapur- Marthahalli Outer Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 103.

PAN: AAACQ 0935H APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No.1025/Ahd/2016 Assessment year : 2011-12 IQVIA RDS (India) Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., of Income Tax, [formerly Quintiles Research Circle 3(1)(2), (India) Private Ltd.], Ahmedabad.

Bangalore – 560 103.

PAN: AAACQ 0935H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ketan Ved, CA Revenue by : Shri Shashi Saklani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru.

Date of hearing : 16.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.12.2025

O R D E R

Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President

1. These cross appeals are filed for the assessment year 2011-12 by the DCIT, Circle 3(1)(2), Ahmedabad [the ld. AO] in ITA No.946/Ahd/2016 and by IQVIA RDS (India) Private Ltd. [formerly Quintiles Research (India) Private Ltd.] (the assessee) in ITA No.1025/Ahd/2016 against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by the ld. AO dated 22.2.2016 pursuant to the directions of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru [ld. DRP].

2. The assessee challenges the assessment order being barred by limitation. On merits, the assessee and the ld. AO both are in appeal before us.

3. The brief facts of the case pointed out before us is that the assessment year involved is 2011-12, the period of limitation for passing the assessment order as per section 153 of the Act is 2 years from the end of the assessment year. The above period is further extended by 12 months as there is a reference made u/s. 92CA of the Act, thus the assessment proceedings should have been completed on or before 31.3.2015. Thus the period of limitation expires on 30.3.2015. The TP order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act is required to be passed on or before 60 days from the date of limitation. Thus as the 60 days period expires on 30.1.2015 being 2 days of January, 28 days of February & 30 days of the month of March, 2015, thus the limitation expires on 30th January, 2015 and therefore the TP order u/s. 92CA(3) is required to be passed on 29.1.2015. However, in the impugned case, the TP order has been passed on 30.1.2015. Thus, the order passed by the ld. TPO is beyond the period of limitation and thus the whole assessment of the ALP of the international transaction deserves to be quashed. In this case, the total adjustment made by the ld. TPO after the settlement of US & UK MACP Mutual Agreement Procedure [MAP] remains of Rs.54,56,230.

4. The ld. AR vehemently supported the above ground stating that as the TP order is barred by limitation, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Madras High Court decision in the case of Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT, 433 ITR 28 and DCIT v. Saint Gobain India (P) Ltd., 446 ITR 636. He further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT v. Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd. [2024] 166 taxmann.com 16 (Karn) dated 12.8.2024. He submits that in that case also, the assessment year involved is AY 2011-12 and the orders are also passed in similar manner. He therefore submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee.

5. The ld. DR vehemently submitted that the order is not time barred.

His arguments are as under:-

“1. The sole bone of contention left in the instant case is whether the Transfer Pricing Order made by the Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') dated 30.01.2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12 ('A.Y 2011-12') was barred by limitation within the meaning of Section 92CA(3A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'IT Act' or 'Act' for brevity). To look at the issue, the