9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 11,96,61,358/- on account of arm's length price. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 64,83,213/- on account of provision for expenses." 3. The assessee company is engaged in the business of designing of semiconductor products, software and electronic systems and providing sales Date of Hearing 22.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement 29.10.2018 and technical support services. The assessee filed its return of income on 31- 10-2005 showing the total income of Rs. 16,08,406/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act was issued and served on the assessee on 27-9-2006. In response to notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act, the CA of the Assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eversed in next year but the liabilities has not been crystallized during the year, why it should not disallowed. The assessee's representative attended and submitted that the miscellaneous liabilities represent full and final settlement of employees and the payment to the extent of RS. 58,84,639/- was made in June, 2005. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee's representative merely made a settlement but no evidence to substantiate the claim was furnished. Thus, the Assessing Officer observed that the entire liability to the extent of Rs. 64,83,213/- was reversed in subsequent year which clearly proves that the liability in respect of miscellaneous expenses to the extent of Rs. 64,83,213/- had not been crystallized during the year. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SOT 267 (Mum Tri.) vii) ST Microelectronics (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 15 ITR 410 (Del. Tri.) viii) ST Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 2016-TII-15-HC-DEL-TP (Del. HC) As regards Ground No. 2, the Ld. AR submitted as per Rule 27 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that the claim of the assessee company relating to Section 10A has to be kept open by the Revenue authorities. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As regards Ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal, from the perusal of the records it can be seen that the comparables which were selected by the TPO are functionally different. The CIT (A) held as under:- "I have gone through the above submission of the Appellant and have also gone through the TP Docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s cannot be considered as a valid transfer pricing analysis. In view of the same I am inclined to accept the comparability analysis as conducted by the appellant. The appellant during the course of assessment proceedings had conducted fresh benchmarking based on the updated (for FY 2005-06) financials available wherein, it selected 32 comparable companies with mean margin of 9.64%. The combined margin (including marketing support segment) earned by the appellant was 10.22%. In view of the above the arm's length price charged by the appellant is accepted and transfer pricing addition made by the TPO ought to be deleted." Thus, the CIT(A) has given an extensive finding as to TPO's comparables are not relevant at all and the fresh benchma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
