2024 (4) TMI 141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he main ground of objection was that assessee had started production only in the month of May 2007 and the sales have started only from the month of July 2007. Whereas, the comparables were in the business for many years. This objection was rejected by the TPO. The CIT(A) upheld the findings of the TPO. The ITAT has rightly came to a conclusion that comparison has to be made between two equals. We agree with the finding of the ITAT that assessee who started the business in a particular year cannot be compared with assessee who are doing business for many years. On facts, the ITAT has given a finding that though there has been no major sales throughout the whole year, the expenses incurred by assessee are almost the same as compared to the e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)], who partly allowed the appeal. The CIT (A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent of addition on account of international transaction amounting to Rs. 3,59,81,523/-. This also was unacceptable to assessee, who preferred the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order dated 11th September 2013 passed by the CIT(A). 3. The ITAT vide order dated 8th July 2016 partly allowed the appeal filed by assessee by referring the matter back to the file of TPO for fresh adjudication. The TPO was directed to reconsider the capacity under utilisation factor alongwith other factors for determining TP adjustment. The ITAT observed that two of the compara .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... countant, whose name appears in the Form-35 Appeal to CIT(A), was served, the papers were returned saying they had never represented assessee. 7. In the assessment order the TPO provided all set of 12 comparables to assessee. The set of 3 comparables selected by assessee were sent for bench marking. Assessee raised various objections to the proposed comparison and the main ground of objection was that assessee had started production only in the month of May 2007 and the sales have started only from the month of July 2007. Whereas, the comparables were in the business for many years. This objection was rejected by the TPO. The CIT(A) upheld the findings of the TPO. The ITAT has rightly came to a conclusion that comparison has to be made betw .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X