9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 1882/PUN/2018 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2022 - SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, AM For the Assessee : Shri Vishal Karla For the Revenue : Shri Prashant Gadekar ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee s twin appeals arise against the DCIT, Cir-8, Pune s as many assessments; dated 29.11.2017 10.10.2018, framed in furtherance to the Dispute Resolution Panel -3, Mumbai (DRP) s directions dated 27.09.2017 24.08.2018 passed in Objection Nos. 20 10; in assessment years 2013-14 2014-15, respectively, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of the the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act . Heard both the parties. Case files perused. AY 2013-14 Assessee s appeal ITA No. 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue on hand, during the year, the assessee paid an amount of Rs.7,39,03,220/- towards Corporate Service Charges. A show cause notice issued to the assessee asking as to why value of these services received should not be considered as Nil. The AO was of the opinion that the similar issue was under discussion in previous year also and the contention raised by the assessee was not accepted therein and the value of services as received by the assessee was considered as Nil. As per the clauses to the agreement the cost of service is the cost and expenses actually incurred by ECICL in performance of the services, as demonstrated to participant. Merely allocation of the cost on the basis of turnover does not justify the event either of availing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted order for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12. We find the Tribunal decided the issue in detail in para 13 of paper book at page 267 for A.Y. 2010-11, by placing reliance on the order of Tribunal for A.Y. 2008-09 held in favour of assessee. Further, the same has been held to be applicable to A.Y. 2011-12 vide para 21 at page 278. We find the facts relating to the issue on hand for the year under consideration are identical, and there is no dispute in this regard. Having no contrary order against the findings of this Tribunal, we hold that the finding rendered by this Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12 is applicable to the issue raised in ground Nos. 5, 6 and 7. Thus, ground Nos. 5, 6 and 7 raised by the assessee are all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strating arm s length price of its international transactions pertaining to manufacturing segment. Further, it was submitted that the DRP for A.Y. 2011-12 upheld the applicability of internal TNMM but however the DRP upheld the action of TPO in rejecting the internal TNMM selected by the assessee as most appropriate method for determining ALP of its international transactions vide para 3.2.4. 5. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the TPO accepted the ALP demonstrated by the assessee in respect of AE and Non-AE segments relating to trading segments. Further, the ITAT, Pune Benches in assessee s own case reported in (2015) 56 taxmann.com 135 for A.Y. 2007-08 held that the internal TNMM is the most appropriate method and referred to pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
