9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n two years that would have a material bearing on the issue of TP adjustment. ITAT had produced the grounds as urged by the Revenue in its appeal against the order of CIT(A). The principal ground urged by the Revenue was that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition. ITAT expressly noted in the impugned order that the submissions advanced by the DRP in respect of AY 2005-06 were reiteration of the submissions made in respect of its appeal in respect of AY 2004-05. This observation is not countered by the Revenue. To ascertain as to how the facts obtaining in AY 2004-05 are materially different from the facts as obtaining in the year 2005-06. One of the differences as mentioned in the appeal is that in AY 2004-05, the assessee had used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espective appeals against the orders dated 30.04.2010 and 18.05.2010 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)], were rejected. The present appeal relates to the Revenue s appeal (being ITA 3514/Del/2010) in respect of the AY 2005-06. 2. The Revenue has impugned the order dated 18.05.2010 passed by the learned CIT (A) in respect of AY 2005-06, essentially, in respect of deletion of an addition of a sum of Rs. 14,29,21,585/- made on account of arm s length price (ALP) adjustment as directed by the Transfer Pricing Officer. 3. The assessee is a subsidiary of eSys Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Singapore (ESYS Singapore) and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of computer hardware and peripherals and distr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee contended that the transactions with its AE were at ALP. 8. The TPO did not accept RPM as the most appropriate method to benchmark the international transaction and proposed TNMM as the most appropriate method for benchmarking those transactions. The TPO also selected operating profit/sales as the PLI. The operating profit being the gross profit less selling, administrative and financial expenses. 9. During the proceedings, the TPO had selected certain comparables, which included two comparable entities as suggested by the assessee and computed the average PLI at 3.11%. The TPO calculated the assessee s PLI at 0.479% and on the said basis made an upward ALP adjustment of Rs. 14,29,21,585/-. 10. The assessee being aggrieved by the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transfer pricing adjustment and summarily rejecting TPO's approach without giving any concrete finding and without appreciating that the facts of the case for AY 2004-05 and AY 2005-06 are different? 16. It is material to note that the Revenue had also filed an appeal against the ITAT s order in respect of AY 2004-05 (ITA No. 898/2018), which was dismissed by this Court by the order dated 08.10.2024. 17. As noted above, the Revenue seeks to fault the decision of the learned ITAT on the ground that the facts as obtaining in respect of AY 2004-05 are materially different from the facts obtaining in AY 2005-06. Therefore, the Revenue s appeal could not have been rejected by following the decision in respect of AY 2004-05. However, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
