9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable in the present case. Hence there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - I.T.A. No. 2833/DEL/2018 - - - Dated:- 8-10-2021 - N.K. Billaiya, Member (A) And Suchitra Kamble, Member (J) For the Appellant : Surender Pal, CIT-DR For the Respondents : Sudesh Garg, Adv. ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order 31/1/2017 order passed by 144C(1)(3) read with Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to delete the adjustment for transaction r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi ( TPO ) by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the TPO, passed an order dated October 31, 2016 under Section 92CA (3) of the Act, wherein adjustment of ₹ 23,21,04,662/- was recommended. The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order dated January 31, 2017 under Section 143(3) of the Act (received by the assessee on February 2, 2017). Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made total additions of ₹ 23,21,04,662/- and computed the income of the assessee at ₹ 327,24,45,452 after taking into account the current year's returned income. The TPO did not concur with the analysis undertaken by the assessee for the purported reasons mentioned in his order and made an addition of ₹ 23,21,04,662. The TPO vide his order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.9 The contention of the TPO is not backed by any cogent reason but is based on conjectures and surmises which will not stand the test of judicial scrutiny. A comparable cannot be excluded merely on the ground that it shows a very high rate of royalty. The TPO has not discussed if there are any material facts like nature of the entity, business model, terms of agreement, geographical area etc. pertaining to Columbia Laboratories, Inc. and Premier Consumer Products, Inc., which render them incomparable to the appellant. As stated above, he has merely rejected them on the ground that the rate of payment for royalty is very high. In view of the same the contention of the appellant is not acceptable. This principle has been upheld by the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
