9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f his order has not been controverted by ld. AR by bringing any positive material on record. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the CIT(A) resulting into addition of ₹ 51,20,400/-. - Decided against assesse. Adjusting the brought forward losses against the income of section 10A unit, before deduction u/s.10A - held that:- As relying on case of Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd [2012 (4) TMI 450 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] no merit in the order of lower authorities for adjusting brought forward losses against income of Section 10A unit, before deduction u/s.10A. Accordingly, the AO is directed to allow claim of deduction u/s.10A on the profit of eligible unit before adjusting the brought forward losses against the income of Section 10A unit - Decided in favour of assesse. - ITA No.5979/Mum/2011, ITA No.6089/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 27-3-2015 - SHRI R.C.SHARMA AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JJ. For The Assessee : Shri V.Chandrasekhar Shri Harshad Shah For The Revenue : Shri N.Padmanaban ORDER PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M.) : These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue against the order of CIT(A) dated 29-6-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c., USA and the amount received/receivable is ₹ 4,49,94,476/- for such export. The method used for determining the Arms Length Price is Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP). It is noticed that even during the earlier assessment years 2003-04 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, under similar circumstances, the CUP method for valuing the international transaction was rejected by the department and TNMM method was applied after detailed discussions made in those orders. It was observed in those orders that the assessee had failed to explain or provide details whether the third party transactions are comparable to its international transactions in every respect which is an essential prerequisite for adopting the CUP method. In view of the above, the AO made TP adjustment of ₹ 73,46,697/-. 6. By the impugned order CIT(A) given relief of ₹ 22,26,247/- on account of TP adjustment and confirmed the balance, after having the following observation :- 2.4,12 In view of the aforesaid discussion, commercial adjustment sought by the appellant or the consideration of the weighted average of the comparable prices as has been contended to be applicable by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed. 7. Regarding ground No.3, the assessee is aggrieved for TP adjustment of ₹ 51,20,400/- retained by CIT(A) by rejecting assessee s adjustment to comparable uncontrolled price. 7.1 Ld. AR placed on record order of Tribunal in assessee s own case for the A.Y.2003-04 to 2007-08, dated 25-5-2012, wherein the CUP method was accepted by the Tribunal for determining arms length price. The precise observation of the Tribunal in the aforesaid case was as under :- 15. The rates charged by them to AE, are comparable to the rate charged by the L T Software and TCS to the assessee for the very same job work. The undisputed facts are that L T Software and TCS are giants in the software industries and are companies with high reputation. The amounts paid to them, represent fair market value. When the assessee adopts these rates as comparable under CUP method no fault can be found. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the following findings of the first appellate authority. i) The rates charged by the assessee company are identical to the rates charged by the third parties in the same line of business for the same job and the assessee has proved the same with evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding regarding rate difference of ₹ 150 per hour, the TP adjustment has been restricted by the CIT(A) to ₹ 51,20,400/- as against adjustment of ₹ 73,46,647/- made by TPO. Detailed finding recorded by CIT(A) at para 2 of his order has not been controverted by ld. AR by bringing any positive material on record. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the CIT(A) resulting into addition of ₹ 51,20,400/-. 8. The next grievance of the assessee was that the AO was not justified in adjusting the brought forward losses against the income of section 10A unit, before deduction u/s.10A. 8.1 We have considered rival contentions and found that issue under consideration is squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Black Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.1237 of 2011, dated 9th April, 2012, wherein it was held that the deduction u/s.10A has to be given at the stage when profits and gains of business are computed for the first instance. The precise observation of the Hon ble High Court are as under :- Section 10A, in our view, has to be given effect to at the stage of computing the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
