9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the impugned order in respect of the 1st and 2nd ground of appeal and direct the Registry to fix the case for hearing before a regular Bench, after informing both the sides. - M.A. No. 284/MUM/2018 (ITA No. 792/MUM/2013) - - - Dated:- 11-3-2020 - Shri Mahavir Singh (Vice President) And Shri N.K. Pradhan (Accountant Member) For the Assessee : Mr. J.D. Mistri Mr. Neeraj Sheth, Ars. For the Revenue : Mr. Uodhalraj Singh, DR. ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. By means of this Miscellaneous Application (MA) the applicant seeks recall of the order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the ITAT K Bench, Mumbai in ITA No. 792/Mum/2013 for the assessment year (AY) 2008-09. 2. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the applicant reit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was invited to page No. 255 of the Paper Book (P/B) filed being the detailed working submitted before the DRP explaining as to how the margin computation considered by the TPO was incorrect. Further it is argued that the working was also handed over to the Bench of the margins of the comparable companies, after excluding the aforesaid three non-comparable companies, rectifying the error in the margin of the comparable companies and re-computing the working capital adjustment on the basis of the aforesaid. It is stated that the Tribunal in the impugned order has set aside the entire matter to the file of the AO with certain observations, whereas the Bench has not referred to any of the decisions cited by the applicant before it during the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RP ; the objections filed by the applicant were disposed off by the DRP vide its direction dated 26.09.2012, wherein without any specific discussion, the action of the TPO of treating the ALP of management fees at Nil was confirmed. However, in the final assessment order dated 29.11.2012 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, the AO only made an addition of Rs.4,48,60,208/- being the amount of adjustment proposed by the TPO in his original order dated 31.10.2011 passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, vis-a-vis the provision of consultancy and designing services ; he did not make any adjustment with respect to the management charges. Thus it is stated that even though a ground was raised challenging the addition proposed by the TPO vis-a-vis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd dispose off the said ground after taking into consideration the arguments and decisions relied on by the applicant; (b) the Tribunal may recall its order vis-a-vis the ground of appeal No. 2 raised by the applicant and the further to decide it in favour of the applicant since no adjustment has been made by the AO in his final assessment order on the issue of management charges; (c)the Tribunal may grant such further and other relief as the nature and circumstances require. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) explains that there being no mistake apparent from record in the present case, there is no merit in the MA filed by the applicant. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te the upward adjustment of Rs.4,48,60,208/- made by him to the Appellant's total income and to re-compute its total income and tax liability accordingly. 1:4 Without prejudice to the above, the AO erred in not giving effect to the rectification order dated 25 July 2012 passed u/s 154 of the Act by the TPO reducing the adjustment from Rs.4,48,60,208/-to Rs.3,02,91,629/- 2:0 Re.: Adjustment of Rs.1,10,25,109/- u/s 92CA of the Act on account of the payment of management charges: 2:1 The TPO erred in considering the corporate charges paid by the Appellant to its AEs as shareholder services and consequently, erred in determining the ALP as Nil. 4.1 In the order dated 31.10.2011, the TPO had proposed a transfer pricing adjust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
