9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eema Malik, CA For The Respondent : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These appeals are filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue against the Assessment Order dated 07.02.2012 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- ITA No. 6144/DEL/2014 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O at ₹ 6,00,00,000/- on account of deemed dividend and ₹ 8,74,517/- as interest thereon by holding that the assessee was not a shareholder of the payer company when the A.O had clearly established that the payer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... using current year data for comparable companies, i.e., data for Financial Year 2007-08, despite the fact that the same was not available with the Appellant at the time of preparing its transfer pricing documentation. 2.3. ignoring the comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant for its contract R D services and thereby performing his own comparability analysis in making adjustment to the transfer price of the Appellant. 2.4. considering only one comparable company namely TCG Lifesciences Limited to benchmark the international transaction pertaining to contract R D segment thereby expecting the Appellant to perform at par with TCG Lifesciences Limited and also disregarding the statistical principle which states that oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional transactions pertaining to the payment of administration fee. 3.4 the support services are in the nature of stewardship as it result into benefit to the AEs and such coordination activity is required to be carried out by the parent companies to improve its global presence and global profit. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the charging of interest under section 234B of the Act. 5. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and / or alter, amend, rescind or modify the grounds taken hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. 3. Akzo Nobel Car Refinishes India Private Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Akzo Nobel Coatings International BV, Netherlands. The company was incorpora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D=A+B+C 10,49,02,721 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue as well as the assessee are before us. 5. During the hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the Hon ble Karnataka High Court vide decree dated 15/12/2014 has concluded the amalgamation w.e.f 1st April 2011 the same information was available before the Transfer Pricing Officer as well as before the Assessing Officer. Thus, the Ld. AR has taken prima facie legal ground that the Assessing Officer passed assessment order on a non existing entity. Thus, the Revenue s appeal is on non existing entity an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Activities (Colour mixing) on the basis of the specifications received from the Akzo Group. Akzo India is responsible for the global, regional refinishes market. R D activity is targeted towards development of unfortunately friendly and technology advances products and development of new colour Akzo India does not own any significant intangible and does not take any significant research and development on its account that leads to the development and non written intangible. Akzo India uses the trade marks, process and know-how technological data software, operating/quality standard etc developed, owned by Akzo Group. Akzo India Provides contract R D services only to the Akzo Group and is compensating on the cost plus pre-determine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comparables. 10. As regards to R D compensation, the said issue is also considered by the Tribunal and held as under: 16. As relates to R D compensation, the Ld. AR submitted that the TPO as well as CIT(A) has grossly erred in not appreciating that the assessee after due verification and application selected uncontrolled comparable companies based on a detailed functional asset and risk (far analysis). The Ld. AR further submitted that using multiple year/average data instead of using current year data for comparable companies which was not available to the assessee,is not proper on part of TPO/A.O as well as CIT(A). Working capital levels were significantly different from the comparables which were not taken into account b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
