2012 (10) TMI 531 - AT - Income Tax

Determination of arm s length price - Architectural services - Contention of Assessee was that directions issued by the DRP is not justified in treating the international transactions entered into between Appellant and its Associated Enterprises as sham and concluding the arm s length price as Nil in respect of service charges paid to its Associated Enterprises. Held that - As the assessee has not filed the requisite information before the DRP due to inadvertence. The requisite information asked for by the DRP has been filed by the assessee belatedly after completion of hearing. Information was filed on 23rd Sept. 2010 though the assessment was completed on 20-9-2010. Consideration of the requisite information filed by the assessee is important to come to a conclusion on the issue in dispute by the DRP - remit the issue back to DRP to consider the same in the light of the evidences - appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

Issues:
1. Adjustment in addition to total income based on provisions of Chapter X of the Income-tax Act 1961.
2. Legality of assessment and reference to Transfer Pricing Officer.
3. Determination of arm's length price for international transactions with Associated Enterprises.
4. Interest under section 234B and 234D of the Income-tax Act.
5. Relief sought by the Appellant.

Adjustment in Addition to Total Income:
The appeal challenged the addition to the total income of the assessee based on the provisions of Chapter X of the Income-tax Act 1961. The Appellant contended that the Assessing Officer erred in making the addition under the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel without following the principles of natural justice. The Appellant argued that the AO did not issue a show cause notice as required by section 92C(3) of the Act. The AO was criticized for not recording an opinion on the satisfaction of conditions in section 92C(3) and for not following section 92CA(1) of the Act. The Appellant sought relief from the addition made to the total income.

Legality of Assessment and Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer:
The Appellant raised concerns about the legality of the assessment and reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). It was argued that the AO did not issue a show cause notice as per the proviso to section 92C(3) and erred in making a reference to the TPO without satisfying the conditions of section 92C(3). Additionally, the AO was accused of not following the provisions of section 92CA(1) of the Act. The Appellant sought to challenge the final order issued by the AO on legal grounds.

Determination of Arm's Length Price for International Transactions:
The Appellant disputed the arm's length price determination for international transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs). It was contended that the transactions were wrongly treated as sham, resulting in an arm's length price of Nil for service charges paid to AEs. The Appellant argued that the DRP failed to consider the documents and submissions provided to substantiate the nature and extent of services received from AEs. The TPO's conclusion that the Appellant could not prove the benefits from the services was challenged, along with the disregard of economic analysis in the transfer pricing study report. The Appellant also criticized the failure to address the application under Section 154 of the Act before passing the order.

Interest under Section 234B and 234D of the Act:
The Appellant contested the levy of interest under section 234B and 234D of the Income-tax Act. The AO's proposal and the DRP's confirmation of interest levy were challenged on legal grounds. The Appellant sought relief from the interest imposed under the mentioned sections of the Act.

Relief Sought by the Appellant:
The Appellant requested directions to grant relief related to the grounds raised in the appeal, specifically seeking the deletion of adjustments in transfer pricing matters. The Appellant expressed the intention to modify or add to the grounds of appeal during the hearing. The Appellant sought relief and consequential actions based on the issues presented in the appeal.

In the final decision, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Dispute Resolution Panel for fresh consideration due to the belated submission of required information by the assessee. The Tribunal considered the importance of the information for reaching a conclusion on the disputed issue. As a result, the appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

← Previous Next →