9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 1137 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake - MA submitted to recall the order of the ITAT to rectify the order to the extent it relates to assessee s ground no. 8 to 11.5 Ground relating to Transfer Pricing issue and Department s ground from 9 to 12.5 Ground related to provision of software, Technical and Consultancy Services, Financial Guarantee, Receipt of Brand Royalty and Performance / Lease Guarantee were not adjudicated HELD THAT - All these grounds of appeal are reflected in the Form No. 36 filed by the assessee and the Revenue pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 however, inadvertently these ground of appeal could not be adjudicated. We find that there is apparent mistake from the record since the aforesaid grounds of appeal remained to be adjudicated. Therefore, to the limited extent of adjudicating the ground of appeal as submitted by the assessee at para 12 of the miscellaneous application we recall the impugned order of the ITAT dated 18.12.2023. 2024 (6) TMI 1122 - ITAT MUMBAI . Accordingly, the registry is directed to list these cases for hearing on 18.06.2024 for adjudicating the assessee s ground of appeal no. from 8 to 11.5 and Department s ground no. 9 to 12.5 as requested by the assessee in the miscellaneous application as discussed above. Both the parties have been informed about the aforesaid date of hearing, therefore, no separate notice will be required to be issued for the hearing fixed for adjudicating the remaining ground of appeal. Therefore, the miscellaneous application is allowed to the limited extent for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-adjudication on Transfer Pricing Grounds raised by the Applicant. 2. Non-adjudication on Transfer Pricing Grounds raised by the Department. Detailed Analysis: Non-adjudication on Transfer Pricing Grounds raised by the Applicant: The assessee filed a miscellaneous application against the ITAT's order dated 07.11.2023, contending that grounds of appeal relating to Transfer Pricing issues (Ground Nos. 8 to 11.5) were not adjudicated. The grounds included: - Transfer Pricing Adjustments: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in not deleting the transfer pricing adjustments made by the DCIT, claiming non-compliance with Section 92C(3) of the Act, lack of proof of tax evasion intent, and improper initiation of proceedings by the TPO. - Provision of Software & Consultancy Services: The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in not accepting the Appellant as the tested party, disregarding the legally binding agreements, rejecting the functional and economic analysis, and disregarding the benchmarking analysis. - Granting of Loans to AEs: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in disregarding the nature of loans as quasi-equity and in holding that the interest charged on loans to AEs was not at arm's length. - Provision of Guarantees to AEs: The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the provision of various guarantees was international transactions and in not following earlier ITAT orders regarding guarantee fees. Non-adjudication on Transfer Pricing Grounds raised by the Department: The Department filed a miscellaneous application arguing that its grounds of appeal (Ground Nos. 9 to 12.5) were not adjudicated. The grounds included: - Provision of Software, Technical and Consultancy Services: The Department questioned the CIT(A)'s direction to restrict the adjustment made on account of Provision of Software & Consultancy Services and the adoption of GP/Sales as the appropriate PLI instead of OP/VAE. - Financial Guarantee: The Department contended that the CIT(A) erred in reducing the rate of Financial Guarantee fee and in not recognizing the risks undertaken by the assessee in providing guarantees. - Performance/Lease Guarantee: The Department argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the adjustment on account of Performance and Lease Guarantees and in directing a lower guarantee fee rate. - Receipt of Brand Royalty: The Department contended that the CIT(A) erred in directing the deletion of the adjustment made on account of Receipt of Brand Royalty, arguing that the assessee was the economic owner of the brand "TCS" and "TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES." Tribunal's Decision: Upon hearing both sides and reviewing the material on record, the Tribunal acknowledged the apparent mistake in not adjudicating the specified grounds of appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to recall the ITAT order dated 18.12.2023 to the limited extent of adjudicating the grounds of appeal mentioned by the assessee and the Department. The registry was directed to list these cases for hearing on 18.06.2024. Both parties were informed about the hearing date, and no separate notice was required. Conclusion: The miscellaneous applications were allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2024.
|
