9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after considering the adjustments proposed by the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in his order passed u/s 92CA(3) and thereby approved by the Hon ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Each of the ground is referred to separately which may kindly be considered independent of each other. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law: 1. That Assessing Officer/DRP have erred in confirming the order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act making an addition of Rs. 68,80,621/- to the total income of the appellant on account of adjustment in the arm s length price of the international transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t providing the benefit of the arm s length range as provided under proviso to sec. 92C of the Act for purposes of computing the arm s length price under section 92F of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the draft assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 31st December, 2009 u/s 144C/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. DRP has passed directions u/s 144C on 30.4.2010 against which the assessee is in appeal before us. As per copy of objections filed by the assessee before DRP, which is running into three pages as available on record, it is seen that eight objections were raised by the assessee against the draft order dated 31.12.2009 but there is no finding given by the DRP regarding these objections raised by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examining the facts of the present case, we examine the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of Gap International Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In that case, the draft order of the Assessing Officer was dated 24.11.2009 and DRP passed directions u/s 144C on 31.5.2010. In that case, the Tribunal has reproduced the provisions of sub-sections (5) to (13) of section 144C and thereafter, it has been observed by the Tribunal in that case that the directions of the DRP are too laconic to be left un-commented. The Tribunal has considered the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of M/s Sahara India (Farms) v. CIT as reported in 300 ITR 403, in which, it was held that even an administrative order has to be consistent with the ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e TPO has proposed adjustment to the ALP. We have gone through the submissions made by the assessee. The TPO, while passing the order, has considered all the objections raised by the assessee after giving enough opportunity of being heard. The business model of the assessee has not changed over the years. The TP order is based on sound reasons., The denial of working capital adjustment to the assessee seems to be reasonable as the assessee has not justified the reasonableness and accuracy of such adjustments. Therefore, we do not see any merit in the case of the assessee and we do not intend to interfere in the order of the TPO. 8. From the above order of DRP, it is apparent that the same is without considering various objections raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
