9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of law is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. - Income Tax Appeal No. 7 of 2017, Income Tax Appeal No. 269 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2018 - Hon'ble Bharati Sapru And Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, JJ. For the Appellant : Shubham Agarwal For the Respondent : Nishant Mishra,Ashish Bansal,Shalini Goel ORDER Since the controversy involved in these two appeals is identical, the same is being decided by a common judgement and order treating the Income Tax Appeal No.07 of 2017 as the leading case. Heard Sri Shubhan Agarwal, learned counsel for the department and Sri Ashish Bansal, learned counsel for the assessee. The Income Tax Appeal No.07 2017, under Section 260-A of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. A.R. At the outse, it may be observed that the RSM Method as adopted by the TPO was not legally correct as the same is applicable only for importers, whereas the present assessee is in the business of exports only. the CUP method has already been rejected by the TPO and the assessee has not disputed such rejection. I also find that in the subsequent year i.e. 2008-09, the TPO has adopted TNMM as the most appropriate method to compute the ALP. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that TNMM should be adopted as the most appropriate method for computing ALP even for this year i.e. A.Y. 2007-08. In this regard, the Ld. A.R. of the appellant/ vide my letter dated 04.01.2013 was requested to give financial details of comparable companies ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not taken into account the variation in closing stock. Before the CIT (A), the assessee took a specific plea that while determining the Arm's Length Price as per TNMM method, the TPO has not considered a sum of ₹ 22,57,58,291/- being variation in closing stock in order to arrive on the figure of operating cost. The assessee has given the figure of correct calculation before the CIT(A) and CIT(A has examined both the calculations i.e. assessee as well as TPO and having noticed that there was factual error in the TPO's calculation, the CIT(A) has held that the average PLI of other comparables, as compared by TPO himself, comes to 8.11%. Since the PLI of the assessee is 9.56%, which is more than the average PLI of comparables, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
