9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,17,488/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued and served on the assessee. In response, AR of the assessee filed the relevant information as called for. 3. Assessee company is a global leader in power propulsion and motion control systems. It is the customer's worldwide partner for marine solutions, from concept to complete life-cycle support provided through the company's global service network. It is engaged in business sales and support of marine equipment of group companies, servicing of marine equipments, sale of marine spares and assembly of marine electrical systems/switch boards for group companies. 4. During assessment proceedings, AO not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be rectified under section 254(2) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with the above, assessee filed Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble High Court observed that however this was a fit case, were the Tribunal ought to have exercised the rectification powers. They observed that assessee had raised specific ground before the Tribunal to challenge the addition of Rs. 4,88,96,708/-. They also observed that this was a substantial part of the petitioner's challenge in the appeal before the Tribunal. In support of such ground, assessee had also sought permission to produce additional evidence. Such permission was granted and additional evidence was allowed to be brought on record. They further observed that thereafter the choice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis. Since ITAT has accepted the additional evidences and the issue under consideration is squarely covered by the decision of Coordinate bench of ITAT in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2013-14, wherein Hon'ble ITAT has decided the issue and deleted the addition made by the AO/TPO. The facts in dispute in the impugned assessment year also same. Therefore, he prayed for deletion of addition in this Assessment Year also. 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR brought to our notice covering letter to the additional evidences and submitted that the additional evidences submitted by the assessee are irrelevant and are general communication between associate companies and assessee. He further brought to our notice findings of ITAT in mai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be rejected and sustained the addition made by TPO/AO. 9. In rejoinder, Ld. AR submitted that assessee has already bench marked based cost allocated and he brought to our notice page 79 of the paper book and also brought to our notice OECD guidelines in this regard, wherein the uses of other method are encouraged. He further brought to our notice page 181 & 182 of the paper book in which assessee has submitted the basis of transactional/split profit and loss account for various business segment based on the services rendered and allocation of cost on actual basis. He further brought to our notice page 25 of the TPO wherein TPO has treated the ALP of the transaction of intra group services at NIL. 10. Considered the rival submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s observed that in an arm's length scenario, no independent party would have made such payment to another party. Thus, the Transfer Pricing Officer has held that as per CUP method, the payment made is not at arm's length and ultimately has determined the arm's length price of such payment at nil. On a perusal of the aforesaid order of the Transfer Pricing Officer, it is very much clear that he has mentioned that the arm's length price has to be determined by applying CUP method. However, factually, he has not done so. It is very much clear that the Transfer Pricing Officer has not brought even a single comparable to justify the applicability of CUP. Rather, it is evident, the Transfer Pricing Officer has determined the arm&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pricing Officer with regard to the arm's length price of the Corporate Fee cannot be sustained. Our aforesaid view is well supported by the judicial precedents cited by the learned Authorised Representative. As regards the contention of the learned Departmental Representative for restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer, we are of the view that there is no necessity to do so in the facts of the present case, as all the required evidences relating to the issue are already on record and have been considered by the Transfer Pricing Officer and learned DRP. In fact, after perusing the evidences available on record, learned DRP has recorded a categorical finding that receipt of service is ascertainable. Learned DRP has upheld the action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
