9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013 relating to the assessment years 2008-09 and 2007-08 respectively, the appellant/ assessee has come up with these Tax Case Appeals. 2. On 08.07.2014, both these Tax Case Appeals were admitted by this court on the following substantial questions of law: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in setting aside the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer to conduct transfer pricing study within the transfer pricing provisions contained in the Act in Chapter X without specifying any of the statutorily prescribed modes in Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for the determination of arm's length price of the international transactions with the Associated Enterprises for considering appropriate adjustments if any required in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or paid in the international transaction has not been determined, which means the correct method has not been followed by the assessee. Therefore, a proposal for adjustment of Rs.1,00,76,210/- which represents the under invoicing of price, which has been adopted by the assessee to arrive at the Arms Length Price (ALP), has been added back as suggested by the TPO and the same has been communicated to the assessee by the Assessing Officer by letter dated 12.11.2010. In response, the assessee submitted their objections on 24.11.2010. Thereafter, the assessing officer passed the order of assessment on 23.12.2010 adopting the TPO's determination of ALP and determined the taxable total income at Rs.64,10,98,696/-. Challenging the same, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee by letter dated 04.11.2011. In response, the assessee, by letter dated 09.11.2011 raised objection to the proposed adjustment. Upon considering the same, the assessing officer concluded that no fresh issue has been raised by the assessee other than the one raised before the TPO, which was already considered and therefore, the Arms Length Price adopted by the TPO at Rs.9,06,35,400/- u/s. 92CA(3) was accepted and added to the income of the assessee for the assessment year in question. Accordingly, the assessing officer passed the draft order of assessment on 28.12.2011. Challenging the same, the appellant filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, Chennai, which rejected the same by order dated 31.08.2012. 3.4. Based on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e analysis to arrive at the ALP for determining adjustment in the computation of taxable total income. Adding further, the learned counsel contended that the provisions of Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 prescribed various methods for the determination of Arms Length Price of the international transactions with Associated Enterprises for the purpose of the section 92C of the Act and the resale price method adopted by the appellant was an approved method under the same, whereas the comparable uncontrolled price method or other methods as prescribed in Rule 10B has no application to the facts of the case. However, the Tribunal, without assigning proper reasons and justification, erred in rejecting the plea for sustenance of the adoptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Mr. J. Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 7. The order of the Tribunal is challenged by the appellant / assessee, mainly on the ground that though the resale price method adopted by the appellant in determining its ALP of the international transactions with the Associated Enterprises, was correct and justifiable within the scope of the provisions / regulations governing Transfer Pricing under the Act, the Tribunal, in paragraph no.29 of the order impugned herein, has erred in holding that the resale price method adopted by the assessee in determining its ALP of international transactions with AE, is not applicable, while remanding the matter back to the TPO for fresh determination. For better ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ational transactions with AE is not applicable. At the same time, the Tribunal was of the further view that the CUP method adopted by the TPO is also not applicable, because the TPO has compared the price of bulk drugs and intermediates sold to non-AEs in small quantity on trial basis, located in Germany, Vietnam, Greece, Japan, Turkey, Argentina, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Thailand with the AE located in USA on wholesale basis. Thus, it is evident that there were some contradictions in the findings of the Tribunal, with regard to the method adopted by the TPO in determining the ALP. However, the order passed by the Tribunal, in remanding the matter to the TPO for fresh determination of ALP, in the facts and circumstances of the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
