9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessee. Addition made to the Low gross profit - after rejecting the books of account, the Assessing Officer computed the gross profit rate and proposed additions - HELD THAT:- There is a specific finding by learned DRP that neither the Assessing Officer has made any adverse remark alleging non furnishing of any details by the assessee nor regarding the maintenance of regular books of account by the assessee. It also appears from record, the Assessing Officer has examined the books of account and the materials furnished before him and has not made any adverse remark regarding the correctness or completeness of the accounts. Simply relying upon a statement recorded from the Vice President of the company, the Assessing Officer has co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TA no.818/Mum./2016 Revenue s Appeals For A.Y. 2010 11 2011 12 2. The first common issue as raised in grounds no.1 to 4, in both these appeals is assailing the decision of learned DRP in accepting Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method as applied by the assessee to be the most appropriate method and thereby deleting the addition made on account of transfer pricing adjustment. 3. Brief facts are, the assessee, as stated by the Revenue authorities is a resident company offering comprehensive portfolio of international and domestic and specialized freight handling services. During the impugned assessment year, the assessee had entered into international transactions with its overseas Associated Enterprises (AEs) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The Transfer Pricing Officer, however, did not accept the submissions of the assessee and rejected CUP method applied by the assessee. Holding that TNMM is the most appropriate method, the Transfer Pricing Officer proceeded to benchmark the transaction with the AE by applying TNMM with operating profit (OP)/ total cost (TC) as the PLI. Out of seven comparables selected by the assessee, the Transfer Pricing Officer rejected certain comparables and ultimately proposed adjustment of ₹ 51,35,70,591, in assessment year 2010 11 and ₹ 14,53,03,285, in assessment year 2011 12. In terms with the adjustment proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer, the Assessing Officer made additions in the draft assessment orders. Against the dra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red into between group companies with unrelated parties as well as the assessee. The same view was expressed by the Tribunal in assessment year 2005 06 vide ITA no.6004/Mum./2010, dated 25th January 2012, in assessment year 2007 08 vide ITA no. 8648/Mum./2011, dated 13th April 2012, in assessment year 2008 09 vide IT(TP)A no.7508/Mum./2012, dated 23rd July 2013 and in assessment year 2009 10 vide IT(TP)A no.1189/Mum./2014, dated 19th November 2014. There is no dispute between the parties that the facts on the basis of which the Tribunal has decided the issue in the preceding assessment years remain unchanged in the impugned assessment years as well. In fact, learned DRP following the decision of the Tribunal in assessment years 2004 05 to 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer computed the gross profit rate and proposed additions of ₹ 10,70,21,929, in assessment year 2010 11 and ₹ 2,67,86,959 in assessment year 2011 12 on identical reasoning. The assessee challenged the aforesaid additions before learned DRP. 9. After considering the submissions of the assessee and perusing the evidences furnished, learned DRP did not find any wrong doing by the assessee and accordingly deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 10. While the learned Departmental Representative has strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer, the learned Counsel for the assessee has drawn support from the observations of learned DRP. 11. Having considered rival submissions an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on conjecture and surmises without any supporting evidence. That being the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of learned DRP on the issue. Ground raised is dismissed. 12. In the result, both the Revenue s appeals are dismissed. C.O. no.77/Mum./2015 C.O. no.29/Mum./2016 13. In view of our decision in the context of Revenue s appeals in the preceding paragraphs, the grounds raised by the assessee in its cross objections have become infructuous, hence dismissed. 14. In the result, assessee s cross objections are dismissed. 15. To sum up, Revenue s appeals and assessee s cross objections are dismissed. Order pronounced through notice board under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
