9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el/2010 in respect of the assessment years (AYs) 2004-05 and 2005-06, whereby the Revenue's respective 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 enga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansactions as 5.43% and the PLI of comparables selected by the assessee as 1.17%. Therefore, the assessee 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 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd has projected the following question for consideration: "i) Whether the Ld. ITAT was correct in deleting 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, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
