9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The ASSESSEE : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate For The REVENUE : Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The Appellant, M/s. Frigoglass India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the taxpayer ) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 25.10.2017, passed by the AO in consonance with the orders passed by the ld. DRP/TPO under section 143 (3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) qua the assessment year 2013-14 on the grounds inter alia that :- Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant respectfully submits that: 1. This ground is general i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the conditions set out in section 92C(3) of the Act are satisfied in the present case 4. No due consideration to decision of Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble ITAT in Appellant's own case 4.1. The learned TPO erred, in law and in facts by proposing wrong adjustment which disregards the order of the higher appellate authorities in Assessee's own case for A Y 2010-11 and AY 2011-12. 4.2. The Ld. AO has erred in disallowing the said transaction merely on the basis that the appeal was recommended to be filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, although as is clear that till date/ till the date of pronouncement of the order passed by AO no appeal has been filed by the department before the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenses incurred by the Appellant 7.1 The Ld. TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in questioning the commercial rationale of the legitimate business expenses incurred by the taxpayer and not restricting the scope of assessment under section 92CA to determining the arm's length price of the international transaction by adopting one of the prescribed methods only. 8. Transfer pricing adjustment based on incorrect assumptions 8.1. The Ld. TPOI Hon'ble DRP erred in passing an order that is perverse in law ignoring the relevant submissions, information and documents provided by the Appellant to substantiate the services and benefits received by the appellant in lieu of payment of royalty, and based on a preoccupied mind r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntered into international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE) as under :- Sl.No. Nature of Transaction Method Amount(in INR) 1. Purchase of raw materials TNMM 93,88,796 2. Sale of finished goods 3,18,48,493 3. Sale of components and spares 90,23,944 4. Purchase of trading goods 11,11,771 5. Payment of royalty 7,65,31,778 6. Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of ₹ 7,65,31,778/- on account of royalty payment as cumulative adjustment u/s 92C of the Act. 4. The taxpayer carried the matter before the ld. DRP by filing objections who has disposed of the objections by directing the AO to complete the assessment as per directions. Feeling aggrieved, the taxpayer has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 5. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Ld. AR for the taxpayer, at the very outset, contended that the issue involved in the present appeal has already been settled in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king following observations :- 6. As for the second issue, that was a matter taken up at the DRP only inasmuch as an enhancement was made by the DRP in this regard. During the course of the proceedings before DRP, it was noticed that in the immediately preceding assessment year, i.e. 2010-11, the TPO had made an ALP adjustment of ₹ 29,65,700 in respect of management fees and of ₹ 8,47,65,448 in respect of royalty and licence fees, and these ALPs were confirmed by the DRP. The DRP required the assessee to show cause as to why similar ALP adjustment not be made for this assessment year as well, as the relevant facts and circumstances are similar. It was in this backdrop, and after rejecting the submissions against the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
