9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1753 - AT - Income TaxStay for recovery of outstanding amount - Addition of TP adjustment - comparable companies selected by the TPO were not comparable at all - HELD THAT - When the assessee failed to file transfer pricing documentations, the TPO has to necessarily select the comparable companies from public domain. Therefore, the assessee cannot have any grievance at this stage. Suffice to say that there is no prima facie case for grant of stay. Accordingly, the Stay Petition filed by the assessee is dismissed. However, the Registry is directed to post the appeal for final disposal on 07.05.2018.
Issues:
Stay petition for recovery of outstanding amount for the assessment year 2013-14. Stay Petition Analysis: The assessee filed a Stay Petition seeking relief from the recovery of an outstanding amount of ?6,81,53,425 for the assessment year 2013-14. The counsel for the assessee argued that financial hardship resulted from a conflict between the principal, a joint venture company, and the main contractor. It was contended that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) did not provide the assessee with an opportunity, and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) did not address the objections raised by the assessee. The counsel further argued that the comparable companies selected by the TPO were not truly comparable. However, it was disclosed that the assessee failed to submit transfer pricing documentation to either the Assessing Officer or the TPO. The Tribunal noted that in the absence of such documentation, the TPO had to select comparable companies from the public domain. Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds for granting the stay, leading to the dismissal of the Stay Petition. The appeal was scheduled for final disposal on a specified date, and the order served as a notice for the hearing. Conclusion: The Stay Petition filed by the assessee was dismissed due to the failure to provide transfer pricing documentation, resulting in the selection of comparable companies from the public domain by the TPO. The Tribunal found no prima facie case for granting the stay and directed the appeal for final disposal on a specific date.
|
