9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cy bearing in mind, and in its estimation, the limited extent and scope of power that stands vested upon it by virtue of Section 254(2) of the Act. However, and since the inconsistency is apparent on the face of the record, we allow ITA and set aside the order. The matter shall stand remitted to the ITAT for considering the appeal afresh. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV For the Appellant: Mr. Neeraj Jain, Adv. with Mr. Aniket D.Agrawal and Mr. Saksham Singhal, Advs For the Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel ORDER 1. The assessee has preferred the instant appeal ITA 9/2023, assailing the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ ITAT ] dated 21 September ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised in the present appeal, is factually and legally perverse? 3. We note that while dealing with the views taken by the Transfer Pricing Officer [ TPO ] and Dispute Resolution Panel [ DRP ], the ITAT had firstly observed that the Resale Price Method [ RPM ] as adopted by the appellant/assessee would clearly be applicable and thus proceeded to benchmark Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion [ AMP ] expenses by applying RPM. This is evident from the following extract of the order dated 21 September 2020 passed by the ITAT:- 8. . In this context we hereby held that in present case the Revenue has not pointed out as to how the Resale Price Method will not be applicable Benchmarking AMP expenses applying RPM is as under:- Sales A 2,276,497,42 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice 17,97,20,965 Grant received 15,12,10,838 Adjustment 2,85,10,127 This computation is not disputed by the Revenue during the course of hearing. Thus, at the best the adjustment made by the TPO/DRP ought to be restricted to Rs. 2,85,10,127/ - as against Rs. 13,50,86,400/ -. Therefore we direct the TPO/ DRP to restrict the adjustment to the extent of Rs. 2,85,10,127/-. Therefore , the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 9. In result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 5. The fact that the aforesaid observations are clearly inconsistent and incompatible is accepted by the ITAT itself as is evident from para 5 of the order dated 10 August 2022, which reads as under:- 5. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
