9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness of manufacture of Chocolates and Confectionery Products. The return of income was filed declaring loss of Rs. 13,13,83,846/-. As the assessee company had entered into International Transactions related to purchases from the Associated Enterprises, a reference was made to the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the Ld. TPO recommended an upward adjustment of Rs. 15,20,75,072/- with regard to the Arms' Length Price (ALP). The assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 2,09,81,026/- after making the Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs. 15,20,75,072/- and also after making a disallowance of 10% from miscellaneous expenses. 2.1 Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT (A) who, vide the impugned order, partly allowed the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rprises instead of the entire operating cost. The Ld. CIT (A) also dismissed the assessee's request for alternate bench marking. The Ld. CIT (A) also ruled that the benefit of +/- 5% could not be allowed to the assessee as it was not a standard deduction to be allowed in each and every case. Further, the disallowance with respect to miscellaneous expenses was restricted to Rs. 50,000/- as against Rs. 2,39,000/- disallowed by the AO. The AO was also directed to consider the loss as per the revised return and re-compute the income as per the loss declared in the revised return. 2.2 Aggrieved with the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A), the department as well as the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. The assessee has raised numerous groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not allowable to the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR prayed that the directions of the Ld. CIT (A) should be reversed and that of the AO restored. 6. We have heard the Ld. Sr. DR and have also perused the impugned order as well as the material on record. We find that this issue has been elaborately discussed by the Ld. CIT (A) in paragraph 7.5 and 7.6 of the impugned order to which we are in full agreement. Further, the revenue's stand that the assessee is ineligible for any adjustments if he provides the set of comparable is not correct because under Rule 10(3) it is the duty of the AO/TPO/DRP to minimize/eliminate the difference which is likely to materially affect the price. It is the settled proposition that 'working capital' adjustment is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
