9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cluding the above four comparables which are also on the same line of business – Decided in favour of Assessee. Non-grant of TDS – MAT credit – Held that:- AO granted TDS credit only to the extent of ₹ 52,59,916 and denied TDS credit to an extent of ₹ 59,73,427 - even though the application u/s 154 was passed, it seems the same was rejected - Form 26A also reflects, TDS credit of more than what assessee claimed, there is no reason to deny the amount of credit which was already granted in an order u/s 143(1) – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA. No. 160/Hyd/2014 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2014 - Shri B. Ramakotaiah And Shri Saktijit Dey,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Kanchan Kaushal with Mr. Aliasger Rampurwala, Mr. Abhiroo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m s length price of the international transactions, TPO analysed the company by making FAR analysis in which he noted down that assessee imported microwave popcorn Act II, its world s largest selling popcorn, from ConAgra group and resells it in the Indian market. However, Assessee has started the manufacture of microwave popcorn in October, 2007 and flavors are added to suit the Indian customers. The packing requirements are also made to ensure adherence to Indian statutory regulations. Assessee imports corn in bulk which is then seasoned, packaged in small packs and sold as instant popcorn Act II. It also purchases peanut butter from ConAgra group. Assessee imports French fries, Swissmiss and Snack pack from ConAgra group, re-sells it in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le performing comparability analysis and also error in computing the mark- up of one comparable company. Assessee has restricted the objections with reference to exclusion of four companies i.e., (1) Capital Foods Ltd., (2) MTR foods (3) Shivadeep Industries Limited (4) Venkataramana Food Speciality Limited (VFSL), which assessee contends, are similar in nature to assessee s business. Regarding Tasty Bites a comparable selected the objection is on working the margins. The detailed submissions of each of the issue are as under. 1. Capital Foods Limited (Capital Foods). Asssessee submits that Capital Foods is engaged in manufacture and sale of ready to eat mixes. It sells under various brands like Ching s Secret , Smith Jones as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 to 672 of paper book). It is pertinent to note that for rejecting Haldiram Bhujiwala Limited for which the annual report for F.Y. 2008-09 was not available, the Ld. TPO has used the annual report of F.Y. 2009-10 for analyzing that the Company is not comparable. 4. Venkatramana Food Speciality Limited (VFSL) VFSL is consistently recognised as a prominent manufacturer and supplier of snack foods keeping in mind to preserve the traditional values of the product in its 18 year old business entity. The company has mad a presence felt for itself over the years in the Indian snack food market and has top-op-the-mind recall. The extracts from the VFSL website shows that the products which are manufactured and sold in a packaged condition an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory. Some of the other products are also directly imported and traded. In fact, the TPO considered the companies which are selected by assessee in his analysis as a manufacturer and marketer of food products. The companies selected are also on similar line of business. However, as seen from the analysis in pages 10 to 12 of the order, the companies assessee has agreed for inclusion are rejected only on the basis of assessee company engaged in sale of ready to eat items . This finding of the TPO cannot be supported because assessee is also manufacturing food items and so reasoning given by the TPO cannot be supported. For example, the reasoning given for capital goods in the TPO order is as under : The company is engaged in manufacturin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned by the A.O./TPO. In view of this, we direct the TPO to re-examine this computation of mark-up by giving due opportunity to assessee and re-workout the adjustment and also by including the above four comparables which are also on the same line of business. Ground No. 9 of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Ground No.10 pertains to not granting credit of tax deducted at source to the extent of ₹ 59,73,427. Assessee claimed credit of TDS to an extent of 1,12,33,343 in the revised return filed for the impugned assessment year. The entire amount of ₹ 1,12,33,343 was given credit in the intimation under section 143(1). However, while passing the order under section 143(3), A.O. granted TDS credit only to the exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
