9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 2122 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT - As noticed that the ITAT Delhi Bench I New Delhi in the case of M/s Mercer Consulting (India) (P.) Ltd. 2014 (7) TMI 715 - ITAT DELHI directed to exclude the Coral Hub Ltd. Also we direct the AP/TPO to exclude M/s Coral Hub Ltd. Cosmic Global and eClerx Services from the list of the comparable while determining the OP/OC for the purposes of arm s length price. Computation of operating profit margins of the comparables - HELD THAT - We deem it appropriate to remand this issue back to the file of the AO/TPO to be adjudicated after considering the submissions and the relevant material furnished by the assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D - As submitted no investment was made by the assessee for the year under consideration and this vital fact was not considered by the TPO/AO while making the disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT - We are of the view that this issue also requires verification/adjudication at the level of the TPO/AO. Accordingly this issue is also restored back to the file of the AO/TPO to be adjudicated in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of addition of Rs. 3,78,55,211 on account of arm's length price (ALP). 2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Levying and computing interest under section 234B of the Act. 4. Initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of Addition on Account of ALP: The primary issue revolves around the addition of Rs. 3,78,55,211 to the assessee's income based on the determination of the arm's length price (ALP) for international transactions with associated enterprises (AEs). The assessee, engaged in manufacturing portable generating sets, I.C. engines, and other equipment, had filed its return declaring an income of Rs. 13,98,57,008. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was involved due to the international transactions exceeding Rs. 15 crores. The TPO rejected some of the filters used by the assessee and insisted on using current year data alone, leading to the selection of new comparables and an adjustment proposal of Rs. 4,43,31,359. The assessee objected, citing the use of the latest available data and the inapplicability of certain filters, but the TPO dismissed these objections based on revised OECD guidelines and economic circumstances. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the TPO's findings, leading to the final addition of Rs. 3,78,55,211. The ITAT, however, directed the exclusion of certain comparables like Coral Hub Ltd., Eclerx Services Ltd., and Cosmic Global Ltd. based on precedents and functional dissimilarities, remanding the issue back to the TPO for reconsideration. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A: The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 63,207 under section 14A read with Rule 8D, arguing that no new investments were made during the relevant financial year. The ITAT noted the need for verification of this claim and remanded the issue back to the AO/TPO for proper adjudication, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT. 3. Levying and Computing Interest under Section 234B: The assessee challenged the AO's computation of interest under section 234B. The ITAT did not provide specific details on this issue within the judgment text but typically such matters are remanded for recalculation based on the revised income post-appeal adjustments. 4. Initiating Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c): The assessee also contested the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The ITAT noted that this ground was premature and did not require immediate comment, implying that such proceedings would depend on the final outcome of the reassessment. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with key issues remanded back to the AO/TPO for reconsideration and verification. The ITAT emphasized the need for accurate comparability analysis and proper application of legal principles in determining the ALP and disallowances under section 14A.
|
