9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing of low carbon cold rolled electrical and mild steel. The return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 was filed electronically on 30.11.2012 declaring total income of Rs.13,01,63,940/-. The appellant company also reported the following international transactions in its Form No.3CAB :- S.No. Nature of Transaction Name of the AE Amount (Rs.) Method 1 Import of Raw Material TK Steel Europe AG 3,748,726,423 Cost Plus Method ('CPM') TKES GmbH 183,269,288 2. Payment of Corporate Mark Fee TKAG 45,503,996 Comparable Uncontrolled Price ('CUP' Method) 3. Receipt of Commission on Sales TKES G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the TP adjustment of Rs.56,24,38,069/-. 4. On receipt of the draft assessment order, the objections were filed before the Hon'ble DRP stating that the Assessing Officer/TPO ought not to have rejected the Cost Plus Method selected by the assessee company as the most appropriate method for the purpose of benchmarking the international transactions relating to purchase of raw material and this method had been consistently applied by the assessee company and accepted by the Department since the year 2002-03 and also objected the comparables selected by the TPO on the ground of functionality differences. However, the DRP had confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer/TPO. 5. On receipt of the direction from the DRP, the final assessment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perused the material on record. The appellant raised the preliminary issue which goes to the root of the matter that the lower authorities are not justified in rejecting the Cost Plus Method as the most appropriate method for purpose of benchmarking the international transactions relating to purchase of raw material and Cost Plus Method which had been accepted by the Department since the year 2002-03 as well as in the subsequent year i.e. A.Y. 2013-14. Undisputedly, there was no change of facts from the preceding assessment year and the subsequent assessment year. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vishay Components India (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein, it was held that when a particular metho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
