9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdingly. - IT(TP)A No. 2056/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 8-12-2020 - Pramod Kumar (Vice President) And Ravish Sood (Judicial Member) For the Appellant : Hirali Desai/Nishant Shah/Chandni Shah For the respondent : Sunil Jha ORDER Per Pramod Kumar, VP: 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged the correctness of the order dated 31.01.2012 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Grievance of the assessee, in substance, is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the A.O./TPO/DRP erred in confirming the upward adjustment of Rs.10.88,57,721/- to the income of the assessee in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto international transactions with its overseas Associated Enterprises (AEs) and in course of such transactions has paid freight expenses to the AEs and has also received freight revenue from the AEs. For benchmarking such transaction, the assessee has applied CUP as the most appropriate method. For comparability purpose, the assessee has relied upon comparable agreements entered into by the group companies with third parties, wherein, the terms are similar to the terms of agreement between the assessee and the group companies. Before the Transfer Pricing Officer, the assessee had submitted that as per corporate policy, after payment of cost the profits are shared equally between the AEs that have participated in transactions. It was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer made additions in the draft assessment orders. Against the/ draft assessment order so passed, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP. 5. Having taken note of the fact that under identical facts and circumstances in assessee's own case, the Transfer Pricing Office himself in assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04 has accepted CU as the most appropriate method and did not propose any adjustment and further, the Tribunal in assessee's own case in assessment year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 has accepted the benchmarking done by the assessee by applying CUP method, followed the same an J deleted the additions made on account of transfer pricing adjustment in both the assessment years under dispute. 6. We have con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned DRP following the decision of the Tribunal in assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the consistent view expressed by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in preceding assessment year as noted above, we uphold the decision of learned DRP in both the years under appeal. Grounds are dismissed. 7. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the coordinate bench. Respectfully following the same, we uphold the plea of the assessee, and delete the impugned arm s length price adjustment of Rs. 10,88,57,721/-. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 8. In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
