9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and applying 6% mark up on such reduced amount of Rs. 5.66 crore, thereby allowing the assessee relief of Rs. 54,60,000/-." 2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in reducing the cost of goods received free of cost of Rs. 9.10 crore, from the total cost of goods of Rs. 14.76 crore and applying 6% mark up on such reduced amount of Rs. 5.66 crore, thereby allowing the assessee relief of Rs. 54,60,000, without appreciating the following facts that: a) the total sales in the balance sheet and profit and loss of the assessee included the cost of raw material. Hence, if the cost of raw material excluded from the operating expenses of the assessee, such selective cost would give distorted results. Once TNM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3337 15,64,91,337/- Price received by the assessee 13,31,66,657/- Shortfall being the adjustment u/s.92CA 2,33,24,680/- 2.2 The TP adjustment made by the AO was agitated in an appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that treatment adopted by the TPO for calculating 6% mark up on the cost is different from the treatment adopted by TPO in respect of immediate preceding year, wherein while calculating the cost the raw material supplied by AE free of cost was excluded. Ld. CIT(A) after going through the submissions of the assessee found that for immediate preceding year i.e. for A.Y 2007-08 TPO while calculating 6% mark up had excluded the value of purchase of raw material and 6% mark up was calculated on the net cost of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010. It was submitted that the approach adopted by the TPO in the said year was exclusion of value of raw material received by the assessee from its AE which was free of cost. It was submitted that the TPO in the said year has adopted this approach after considering the submissions of the assessee and by way of a speaking order. It was further submitted by Ld. AR that assessee has accepted the view point taken in respect of A.Y 2007-08, therefore, did not file any appeal against the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) by which addition of Rs. 1,78,64,680/- has been upheld. Thus, it was submitted by Ld.AR that the order of Ld.CIT(A) being in accordance with the course of action adopted by Department in respect of immediate preceding year, (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
