9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amendment came into effect by the Finance Act, 2017. We therefore find no merit in the argument of the Ld. AR and hereby dismiss the additional ground raised by the assessee. TPO while considering the comparables have not considered the entrepreneurial companies which are engaged in the Palm Tree Plantation as well as production - HELD THAT:- As on perusal of the GOs submitted by the Ld. AR that 3F Oil Palm sells at a price lower than the notified rates to the assessee and hence we are of the considered view that there is no over-charging of price of the Oil Palm by 3F Oil Palm to the assessee. Similarly, we also note that the price charged to third parties ie., Non-Associated Enterprises is more than the price charged to the assessee by 3F Oil Palm. Further, from the financials submitted by the Ld. AR, we find that 3F Oil Palm has sold Rs. 7.68 Crs worth goods / services to the assessee as against the total sales of goods by 3F Oil Palm aggregating to Rs. 88.51 Crs. From the above, we find that the sales made by 3F Oil Palm to the assessee by less than 10% of the total sales of 3F Oil Palm. We are inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. TPO to verify the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esentative, rejected the TP documentation maintained by the assessee and a TP adjustment of Rs. 1,08,98,025/- on the international transactions pertaining to interest on working capital and term loans of Rs. 61,64,747/- in respect of specified domestic transaction with 3F Oil Palm Agrotech Private Limited [3F Oil Palm] vide its order dated 31/10/2016 passed U/s. 92CA(3) of the Act. The assessee noticed certain mistakes apparent on record and filed a rectification petition U/s. 154 of the Act. The Ld. TPO rectified the mistakes vide order dated 18/11/2016 by revising the TP Adjustment of Rs. 14,05,566/- pertaining to interest on working capital and term loans of Rs. 62, 64,747/- in respect of specific domestic transactions. Considering the TPO's order, the Ld. AO completed the scrutiny proceedings and passed a draft order U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3), dated 24/11/2016. The Ld. AO later finalized the draft assessment order and issued a final assessment order on 27/12/2017 incorporating the adjustments proposed in the draft order since the assessee company preferred to file an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alysis rejecting entrepreneurial companies engaged in palm tree plantation and production inter alia including: i. Godrej Agrovet Limited (Vegetable Oil Segment). ii. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited (Extractions segment) iii. Navabharat Agro Products Private Limited iv. Oil Palm India Limited Corporate Tax Matters Ground No.5: Disallowing Miscellaneous Expenditure incurred towards business of the appellant of Rs. 64,895/- Ground No.6: Initiating penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act." 4. The assessee raised in its grounds of appeal the rejection of CUP method and application of TNMM method and also objected to the selection of companies which comprises of the grounds No. 1 to 4. The assessee in Ground No.5 raised the issue of disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure amounting to Rs. 64,895/-. The assessee in Ground No.6, challenged the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. In addition to the grounds of appeal, the assessee filed a request for admitting the additional grounds of appeal as follows: "7. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant contends that since the provisions of section 92BA(i) of the Act relatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 811 whereunder Apex Court has examined the effect of repeal of a statute visa- vis deletion/addition of a provision in an enactment and its effect thereof. The import of section 6 of General Clauses Act has also been examined and it came to be held: "37. The position is well known that at common law, the normal effect of repealing a statute or deleting a provision is to obliterate it from the statute-book as completely as if it had never been passed, and the statute must be considered as a law that never existed. To this rule, an exception is engrafted by the provisions of section 6(1). If a provision of a statute is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings, all actions must stop where the omission finds them, and if final relief has not been granted before the omission goes into effect, it cannot be granted afterwards. Savings of the nature contained in section 6 or in special Acts may modify the position. Thus the operation of repeal or deletion as to the future and the past largely depends on the savings applicable. In a case where a particular provision in a statute is omitted and in its place another provision dealing with the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r pleaded that the Ld. TPO should be considering the right comparables and hence the matter may be remitted back to the Ld. TPO for consider the same and similar companies engaged in manufacture and production of Oil Palm. 10. With respect to disallowance of Rs. 64,875/- being the miscellaneous expenditure by the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld AR submitted that these expenses are incurred towards the business of the appellant and hence pleaded to be allowed. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. The Ld. DR further submitted that the 3F Oil Palm is a tax exempt entity as they claimed exemption benefit U/s. 80IB of the Act and hence they charged over pricing of the Oil Palm supplied to the assessee company. The Ld. DR further submitted that the 3F Oil Palm has earned a margin of 11.66% against the profit of 3.85% of the assessee which implies that 3F Oil Palm has over priced the product by the assessee. The Ld. DR further contended that the comparables taken by the Ld. TPO is mixed bunch of traders and manufacturers and hence it is valid. The Ld. DR pleaded that the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities be upheld. 11. We have heard both the sides and perus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the assessee by less than 10% of the total sales of 3F Oil Palm. 14. In view of the above discussions, we are inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. TPO to verify the claim made by the assessee-company with respect to price chart to third parties vis-à-vis price supplied to the assessee. Similarly, the Ld. TPO may also verify the price charged by 3F Oil Palm to the assessee as against the notified rates by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide its Government Orders on Monthly basis. We therefore, direct the Ld. TPO to compare the rates and decide the matter in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 15. With respect to Ground No.5 regarding disallowance of Miscellaneous Expenditure of Rs. 64,895/-, we could not accept the arguments of the Ld. AR that it is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession. The Ld. CIT(A) in his order in para 6.1 has considered this issue and has disallowed the gift expenses and Vaastu expenses which do not constitute as wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession. In our considered view, since the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
