9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1890 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - Comparable selection - HELD THAT - Accentia and Jindal were selected as comparables both by the assessee in its TP study and the TPO as per his order u/s. 92CA of the Act. We find that as contended the DRP has suo moto rejected these two companies as comparable without the assessee having raised any objections to their inclusion in the final set of comparables. We have carefully perused of the DRP s order and find that the DRP has not adduced any proper reasoning as to why these companies should be excluded from the list of comparables in spite of the fact that no objections to their inclusion has been raised by the assessee. We deem it appropriate to set aside the DRP s order excluding these two companies from the list of comparables and restore the issue of comparability of these two companies to the file of the TPO for fresh adjudication. Needless to add that the assessee will be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard in the matter and to file submissions/details required which shall be considered by the TPO before deciding the matter. MAT Credit u/s. 115JA - HELD THAT - We have heard both parties in the matter and perused the material on record. We direct the AO to examine and verify the record in respect of the assessee s claim for MAT credit and allow the same in accordance with law. Interest u/s. 234B - HELD THAT - The assessee denies itself liable to be charged interest u/s. 234B of the Act. The charge of interest is consequential and mandatory and the assessee has no discretion in the matter. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Anjum Ghaswala 2001 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT and we therefore uphold the AO s action in charging the assessee the said interest. The AO is however directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s. 234B of the Act while giving effect to this order.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(1). 2. Rejection of the assessee's Transfer Pricing (TP) documentation. 3. Transfer Pricing adjustment under section 92CA. 4. Denial of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit under section 115JAA. 5. Levy of interest under section 234B. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Reference to the TPO under Section 92CA(1): The assessee contended that the reference made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the TPO was without satisfying the conditions of section 92CA(1) and was done mechanically without application of mind, contrary to Instruction No. 15/2015. However, the tribunal did not provide a detailed discussion on this issue, implying that it was not pressed or urged by the assessee during the hearing. 2. Rejection of the Assessee's TP Documentation: The assessee argued that the DRP erred in upholding the TPO's action of rejecting the TP documentation maintained by the assessee. The DRP upheld the TPO's invocation of section 92C(3)(c) without satisfying the necessary conditions. The tribunal did not specifically address this issue, suggesting that it was not a primary focus during the appeal. 3. Transfer Pricing Adjustment under Section 92CA: Exclusion of Comparable Companies: - Universal Print Systems Ltd.: The tribunal remanded the issue back to the TPO for examination and verification of the functional comparability and employee cost filter at the segmental level, following the decision in CGI Information Systems & Management Consultants (P.) Ltd. - Infosys BPO Ltd.: The tribunal directed the exclusion of Infosys BPO Ltd. from the final set of comparables due to its brand value, intangibles, and extraordinary events during the year, following the decision in CGI Information Systems & Management Consultants (P.) Ltd. - BNR Udyog Ltd.: The tribunal remanded the issue of comparability of BNR Udyog Ltd. to the TPO for fresh consideration, following the decision in Indegene (P.) Ltd. - TCS E-Serve Ltd.: The tribunal remanded the matter of comparability of TCS E-Serve Ltd. to the TPO for fresh consideration, following the decision in Indegene (P.) Ltd. - Excel Infoways Ltd.: The tribunal remanded the issue of comparability of Excel Infoways Ltd. to the TPO for examination and verification of the assessee's contentions on abnormality of profits and failing the employee cost filter at the segmental level. Inclusion of Comparable Companies: - Accentia Technologies Ltd. and Jindal Intellicom Ltd.: The tribunal set aside the DRP's order excluding these two companies and restored the issue of their comparability to the TPO for fresh adjudication, as they were initially selected by both the assessee and the TPO. 4. Denial of MAT Credit under Section 115JAA: The assessee claimed MAT credit for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12, which was not allowed by the AO. The tribunal directed the AO to examine and verify the record in respect of the assessee's claim for MAT credit and allow the same in accordance with the law. 5. Levy of Interest under Section 234B: The assessee contended against the levy of interest under section 234B. The tribunal upheld the AO's action in charging interest, citing the mandatory nature of the interest as upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Anjum Ghaswala. The AO was directed to re-compute the interest chargeable under section 234B while giving effect to the tribunal's order. Conclusion: The tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, remanding several issues back to the TPO for fresh consideration and directing the AO to re-examine the MAT credit claim and re-compute the interest under section 234B. The tribunal's decision emphasized the need for detailed examination and verification of the comparability of certain companies and adherence to proper procedures in TP adjustments.
|
