JONES LANG LASALLE PROPERTY CONSULTANTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 13(1), DELHI/ ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

ITTPA 218/DEL/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Jones Lang Lasalle Property Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. appealing against a final assessment order for the Assessment Year 2022-23, which was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel. The primary contention was the validity of the final assessment order, which was argued to be time-barred as it was issued beyond the statutory deadline prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal examined the timeline of events, including the date of the DRP's directions and the date of the final assessment order, and found that the order was indeed passed beyond the permissible period, leading to its quashing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 854416 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 01-07-2026
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2026
• Other Referred Cases: Hyundai Rotem Company vs. PCIT, BirdEye Software India P. Ltd. vs. Assessment Unit
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAHESH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHIL AGGARWAL; PURU MEDHIRA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; TDS; Rectification of order; Notional interest; Time period of passing order
• Section: 144; 143(3); 154; 43B; 10B

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, I: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.- 218/Del/2026 [Assessment Year: 2022-23] Jones Lang Lasalle Property Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1110 Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Placed, New Delhi-110001. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13(1), Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, 3rd Floor, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002. PAN- AAACL2089B Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Nikhil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Puru Medhira, Adv. Revenue by Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 01.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.07.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the Final Assessment Order dated 25.02.2026 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. AO’) under Section 143 read with Section 144C(13) read with section144B, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), Printed from counselvise.com IT(TP)A- 218/Del/2026 Jones Lang Lasalle Property consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2 pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi (DRP) order dated 27.12.2025 for the Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, JONES LANG LASALLE PROPERTY CONSULTANTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (hereinafter referred to as 'JLLPC' or 'the Appellant') craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as \"A07 pursuant to directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as 'DRP'] under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the following grounds: GENERAL 1 The learned AO has erred in determining the income of the Appellant at INR 2,94,51,87,331 as against returned income of INR 2,18,11,58,360 for the year under consideration. 2 That, the final assessment order framed by the learned AO pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as \"the Hon'ble DRP\") under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"), is a vitiated order having been passed after 31.03.2025, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 153(1)/(4) of the Act. VALIDITY OF FINAL ORDER PASSED BEYOND TIMELINES PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 144C(13) OF THE ACT 3 The final assessment order dated 25.02.2026 is barred by limitation; having been passed beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under section 144C(13) of the Act (i.e., 31.01.2026), i.e., passed after one month from the end of the month in which DRP direction is received and consequently, the assessment proceedings are time barred and liable to be quashed. ON MERITS 4 The Ld. TPO/AO have erred, in law and in facts, by disturbing the analysis undertaken by the Assessee and conducting a fresh search for the property management, advisory & brokerage services. 5. The Ld. TPO/AO have erred, in law and in facts, by modifying the search criteria adopted by the Assessee and in applying the following filters for selection /rejection of comparable companies: Printed from counselvise.com IT(TP)A- 218/Del/2026 Jones Lang Lasalle Property consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3  Rejection of companies having a different financial year ending.  Rejection of companies having persistent operating losses in consecutive two financial years out of three financial years.  Rejection of companies based on employee cost. 6 The Ld. TPO/AO have erred, in law and in facts, by rejecting the comparable companies identified by the Assessee as comparable in the TP documentation for abovementioned transaction. 7. The Ld. TPO/AO have erred, in law and in facts, by adding certain companies to the final set of comparables on an ad-hoc basis without due consideration to the functional, assets and risk profile of the Assessee. 8. The Ld. TPO/AO have erred, in law and in facts, by not allowing the adjustment for differences in the working capital while computing the margins of the comparable companies. 9 The Ld. TPO/AO have erred, in law and in facts, by erroneously computing the margins of certain comparable companies. 10. The Ld. TPO/AO have erred, in law and in facts, by selecting certain companies (which are earning supernormal profits) as comparable to the Assessee to benchmark the impugned transactions 11. The Ld. TPO/AO have erred, in law and in facts, by not providing consequential relief of reducing Business Advisory Service (\"BAS\") charges from operating cost of the Assessee, pursuant to signing of Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (\"BAPA\") dated 18 October 2024 as directed by the DRP. 12. The Ld. TPO has erred in including deemed international transactions for determination of the quantum of adjustment for property management, advisory and brokerage segment. The said transactions are quadrangular in nature and are reported by the Appellant only out of abundant caution. 13. The Ld. TPO/AO erred in facts and circumstances of the case by making an adjustment in relation to interest on outstanding receivables from AEs. Corporate Tax Grounds 14. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in taking into account the income as per rectified Section 154 order despite the fact that an appeal is pending against the same before the Ld. CIT(A), Printed from counselvise.com IT(TP)A- 218/Del/2026 Jones Lang Lasalle Property consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4 15. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in passing the rectified 154 order dated 16 December 2025 in ignorance of the settled law that Section 154 orders cannot be rectified post issuance of Section 143(2) notice. 16. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in passing a non-speaking order under section 143(3) of the Act, wherein no details or findings or reference is mentioned basis which addition is made relying on the rectification order dated 16 December 2025 passed by the Learned Centralized Processing Center (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. CPC') under section 154 of the Act. 17. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making addition basis rectification order passed by the Ld. CPC under section 154 of the Act, without adjudicating disputed additions and erred in taking contradictory stand by adopting income computed as per order passed under section 154 of the Act as starting point for purpose of computation of income pursuant to order under section 143(3) of the Act 18. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in not issuing show-cause notice prior to making addition based on the adjustments made to the returned income in the rectification order passed under section 154 of the Act which is against the principles of natural justice. Grounds in relation to disallowance of sum paid as bonus and commission to employees under section 43B of the Act 19. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making addition amounting to INR 18,52,45,663 without appreciating that the said amount has already been disallowed by the Appellant in the income tax return form filed in the prior years and claimed deduction on payment basis as per section 43B of the Act during the subject year. 19.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in not appreciating the fact that there is no mismatch between the amounts as reported by the tax auditor at Sr. No. 26.i.(A)(a)(4) and Sr. No. 26.1.(A)(a)(5) of the tax audit report for the subject year and the amount of aggregate deduction of INR 18,52,45,663 claimed by the Appellant under section 43B of the Act at Sr. No. 10c under \"Part A - Ol\" of the income tax return form filed for the subject year. Ground in relation to disallowance of amount deposited to labour welfare fund under section 43B of the Act 20. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making addition amounting to INR 2,94,267 without appreciating that the said amount has already been disallowed by the Appellant in the income tax return form filed in the prior years and claimed deduction on payment basis as per section 43B of the Act during the subject year. Printed from counselvise.com IT(TP)A- 218/Del/2026 Jones Lang Lasalle Property consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. 5 20.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in not appreciating the fact that there is no mismatch between the amounts as reported by the tax auditor at Sr. No. 26.i.(A)(a) (1) of the tax audit report for the subject year and the amount of deduction of INR 2,94,267 claimed by the Appellant under section 43B of the Act at Sr. No. 10b under \"Part AOI\" of the income tax return form filed for the subject year. Ground in relation to disallowance of employees' contribution to labour welfare funds under section 36(1)(va) of the Act 21. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making an addition of INR 56,040 under section 36(1) (va) of the Act in relation to employees' contribution to labour welfare funds without appreciating that such amount was duly deposited before the statutory due date prescribed under the relevant statutory Act. Ground in relation to short grant of credit of tax deducted at source ('TDS') 22. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in allowing the credit of tax deducted at source to the extent of INR 1,30,49,72,489 only while determining tax liability in the final assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act as against credit of tax deducted at source amounting to INR 1,41,81,12,650 claimed by the Appellant in the return of income filed for the subject year. Ground in relation to short grant of credit of tax collected at source ('TCS') 23. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in allowing the credit of tax collected at source to the extent of INR 6,82,098 only while determining tax liability in the final assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act as against credit of tax collected at source amounting to INR 6,87,840 claimed by the Appellant in the return of income filed for the subject year. Consequential grounds: 24. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in levying an interest of INR 74,98,080 in the assessment order while computing total interest liability, without stating any specific section under which it is levied. 25. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating Penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under reporting in consequence of misreporting of income. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete such other objections before or during the course of hearing before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Printed from counselvise.com IT(TP)A- 218/Del/2026 Jones Lang Lasalle Property consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. 6 ('ITAT'), so as to enable the Hon'ble ITAT to decide on the grounds raised by the Appellant, as per law..” 2.3 Although the assessee has raised multiple grounds, we first take up ground no. 3, challenging the validity of final assessment order passed on 25.2.2026 beyond the prescribed time period of one month from the end of the month, in which DRP directions were issued. 3. Brief facts in this regard are that the assessee filed its return for A.Y. 2022- 23 on 29.11.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 218,11,58,360/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. A reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its Associated enterprises (AE). Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). After considering the directions of the DRP dated 27.12.2025 and the order passed by the TPO (to give effect), the assessment was finalised at an income of Rs. 294,51,87,331/- u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) r.w.s. 144C(13) on 25.02.2026. 3.1 Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR has, at the outset, raised the issued regarding validity of final assessment order in view of the following time line: (i) Date of order of DRP – 27.12.2025 (ii) Time limit u/s 144C(13) to pass final Printed from counselvise.com IT(TP)A- 218/Del/2026 Jones Lang Lasalle Property consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. 7 order (one month from the end of the month in which DRP directions issued) – 31.01.2026 (iii) Date of final assessment order – 25.02.20220 4.1 He has made the following written submissions in this regard: “The DRP vide order dated 27.12.2025 (pg. 61 of paperbook) granted partial relief to the appellant on the issue of comparables and interest on receivables. Pertinently. DRP directions were passed and uploaded on the ITBA portal on the same date, Le 27.12.2025 and as such were served on the AO on 27.12.2025 itself (pg. 60 of paperbook). 6. Post the DRP directions, the TPO passed an order giving effect vide order dated 13.01.2026 (pg. 46 of paperbook) basis which, additions on property management, advisory and brokerage services was reduced from INR 92,16,73,321 to INR 38,20,32,306. Further, on the issue of notional interest on receivables, addition was reduced from INR 32,81,110 to INR 26,22,672. 7. Despite the fact that Section 144C(13) only provides a time of \"one month from the end of the month in which DRP directions were served on the AO\", which expired on 31.01.2026, the AO passed the final assessment order on 25.02.2026 making an addition of INR 38,83,81,191. Printed from counselvise.com IT(TP)A- 218/Del/2026 Jones Lang Lasalle Property consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. 8 8. The AO passed the final assessment order dated 25.02.2026 giving effect to the DRP directions after one month from the end of the month in which DRP Directions were received 9. Under Section 144C(13) of the Act, the period of limitation before the AO for passing the final assessment order (pg. 219 of paperbook) (13) Upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5), the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 or section 153B, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received.\" 10. The present case is squarely covered by the appellant's own case for AY 2020- 21 in ITA No. 3964/DEL/2024, order dated 23.05.2025 final assessment order was set aside on the sole ground of limitation under Section 144C(13) holding that date of uploading of DRP orders will trigger the one month limitation period in the following manner: (starts at pg. 241, para 12 on pg. 252 of paperbook) \"12 In the context of faceless assessment process time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic document (in this case DRP order) is required to be ascertained by reference to section 13 of Information Technology Act, 2000 which is the basis prescribed under section 1448 of Income Tax Act also (refer section 144 B (6)(v)). Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of G.S Chatha Rice Mills (supra), interpreted this very provision. Applying principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, only relevant fact necessary for deciding Ground No. 3 in present appeal relating to time barred assessment, is time of uploading by DRP of DRP order onto ITBA portal. Intimation letter to DRP order unambiguously shows 31.05.2024 as date of uploading of DRP order. This fact cannot be disputed. Except this critical and relevant information everything else (like when order is visible to AO, date of uploading some document by DCIT/ACIT circle 2 (1) (1) Delhi) has been submitted by Respondents. It is fair to conclude that date of uploading DRP order on ITBA portal is 31.05.2024. As per section 144C(13) of the Act, assessment had to be completed on or before 31.05.2022. In present case the assessment is completed only on 30.6.2022 i.e., it is time barred null and void. Therefore, impugned assessment order dated 30.07.2022 is set aside being barred by limitation. Accordingly, ground of appeal no.4 is allowed.\" 4.2 Ld. AR has also placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court: Printed from counselvise.com IT(TP)A- 218/Del/2026 Jones Lang Lasalle Property consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. 9 (i) Hyundai Rotem Company [2025] 180 taxmann.com 18 (Delhi), wherein it was held that the date of uploading of DRP directions is the crucial date on which and the order of the AO passed after one month from the end of the month in which DRP directions received by the AO was barred by limitation. (ii) PCIT vs. Microsoft Corporation Pvt. Ltd., ITA 70/2026, wherein it was held that the date of uploading on the ITBA portal determines the date of receipt of DRP directions by the AO. (iii) BirdEye Software India P. Ltd. vs. Assessment Unit, WP(C) 16467/2024, wherein against the decision in Hyundai Rotem (supra) was followed on this issue. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has relied on the orders of the lower authorities and has also filed a report of the AO with regard to the legal issue raised by the assessee. Relevant portion of the AO’s report is reproduced below: “The conclusions drawn in the assessment order are based on a proper appreciation of fact and applicable provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee has failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded on merits are either perverse, contrary evidence or unsupported by law. The additions/disallowances made are independently sustainable facts and in law irrespective of the technical ground relating to limitation. Accordingly, even assuming, without admitting, that the issue regarding limitation requires consideration, the findings recorded in the assessment order on merit remain fully justified and are liable to be upheld in the event the assessment order is held to be otherwise valid. Printed from counselvise.com IT(TP)A- 218/Del/2026 Jones Lang Lasalle Property consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. 10 The relief sought not to be granted merely on a technical ground. In the interest of delivering substantial justice, the merits of the case should also be examined. It is a well well-settled principle that that procedural pr or technical lapses should not defeat the cause of justice where substantive meri rant adjudication. The following judicial precedents support this proposition: 1. State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari The Supreme Court held that procedural law is intended to facilitate justice and should 2. Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah The Court observed that procedural laws handmaids of justice and are designed to advance, not obstruct, the administration of justice.” 6. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the material available on record, in the light of the judicial citations relied upon by the parties. Admittedly, the final assessment order was passed on 25.02.2020, whereas the prescribed time limit of one month after the end of the month in which DRP order dated 27.12.2025 was passed, expired on 31.01.2026. In view of the provisions of section 144C(13) and the decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court cited above, we are of the considered view that the final order passed by the AO was beyond the prescribed time limit and hence is liable to the quashed. In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed. 7. Since the assessment order has been quashed, rest of the grounds are rendered academic in nature and hence not being adjudicated upon. Printed from counselvise.com IT(TP)A- 218/Del/2026 Jones Lang Lasalle Property consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. 11 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- [KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 17.07.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi, Printed from counselvise.com "