Arijit Banerjee, J. - (1.) These two writ petitions arise out of similar facts and involve the same question of law. Accordingly, the two writ petitions were taken together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
(2.) The subject matter of challenge in the two writ petitions is a reference made by the respondent no. 3 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) to the Transfer Pricing Officer (in short 'TPO') under Section 92CA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'IT Act') communicated by the respondent no. 3 vide his letter dated 4 April, 2014, a notice dated 4 April, 2014 issued by the respondent no. 3 under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act and a notice dated 6 June, 2014 issued under Section 92CA(1) read with Section 92D of the Income Tax Act issued by the TPO relating to the assessment year 2011-12 and the proceedings in pursuance of such notice. The reference to factual details in this judgment shall pertain to WP No. 733 of 2014 (Price Waterhouse and Anr. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata). Case of the petitioners:
(3.) The short point urged by Mr. Pal, Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners is that the reference to the TPO is without jurisdiction. As such all actions taken or contemplated pursuant to such reference are or would be bad in law. He submitted that the reference is ultra vires the Income Tax Act since the conditions precedent for a transaction to be 'international transaction' within the meaning of Section 92B of the Income Tax Act are not fulfilled even assuming the correctness of the allegations based on which the impugned reference has been made.;