9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ements received under MDF agreement, on application of TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method at segmental/entity level, then individual component of AMP cannot be segregated for benchmarking and protective adjustment to preserve the interest of the revenue cannot be made in this case when the issue of AMP is still sub-judice and is pending before the Hon ble Apex Court - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has rested its view on the decision rendered by this Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. [ 2015 (3) TMI 580 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] The view so expressed is clearly unexceptionable. Comparable selection - Assessee company is stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing and distributing various Samsung products falling in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal comparable list. No substantial question of law. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , then individual component of AMP cannot be segregated for benchmarking, when the TPO is fully empowered for segregation/aggregation of transactions as per the LT. Act and International guidance for Arm's Length determination? 2.5 Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the kl. ITAT was right in law in stating that protective adjustment to preserve the interest of the revenue cannot be made in this case when the issue of AMP is still sub-judice and is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 2.6 Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case of the ld. ITAT was right in law in excluding OTS E Solutions Pvt. Ltd. as functionally non comparable without considering the finding of the TPO w.r.t. broad lev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, the Tribunal has held as follows:- "11.3 We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. From the perusal of the records it can seen that OTS E- Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was held as not comparable in subsequent assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 by the Tribunal. The functional dissimilarity is apparent on record and there are no changes in the present assessment year. Hence, we direct the TPO to exclude this comparable from the final list of comparables." 5. Proceeding then to examine the claim for inclusion of the Redington India Ltd., the Tribunal has come to the following conclusions:- "12.3 We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. From the perus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
