9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t would have also gone down substantially. We find that the assessee has paid tax of Rs. 4.4 crores for which credit has not been given to the assessee, therefore naturally this amount can be considered towards 20% of the outstanding demand. Assessee has categorically shown that there is an error in the computation of margin with respect to trading manufacturing segment which is accepted by the ld. TPO in the remand report, but as the ld. DRP did not comment on the same, TPO/AO continued with the computational error. We are of the view that for such computational errors, the ld. TPO/ld. DRP has failed to do their duty to make such corrections when it is so obvious. No doubt, while computing interest on outstanding receivable from AE, assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposited a sum of Rs. 4,04,00,000 on 31.12.2024 for this assessment year which has not been granted credit to the assessee. If the above amount is considered as a credit, then the assessee has already deposited 20% of the demand outstanding. The ld. AR submitted a copy of the challan. Secondly, the ld. AR submitted that addition is made in view of the adjustment of international transaction of ITeS segment of Rs. 31.05 crores, trading segment of Rs. 27.53 crores and manufacturing segment of Rs. 4.10 crores. He further submitted that addition of Rs. 18.58 is made by the ld. TPO on account interest on delayed receivables without giving any working. He referred to the margin statement of the ld. TPO and submitted that the margin computed is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... standing receivables wherein the correct demand, if everything else is accepted, would become only Rs. 11 crores. Such an application is still not responded to. In the end, he submitted that as the assessee has deposited Rs. 4.4 crores for which credit has not been given, which is more than 20% of the outstanding demand, assessee deserves stay. 3. The ld. DR vehemently objected to stay petition and submitted that amount of tax paid of Rs. 4.4 crores has not been shown by the assessee to the ld. AO or the ld. DRP and therefore credit for the same was not given. He submits that the addition of Rs. 18 crores is on account of the result of non-compliance by the assessee and therefore the assessee does not deserve any stay on the same. To the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y taking figure for which there is no substantial evidence. The application made by the assessee u/s. 154 of the Act is also pending, which clearly shows that if such arithmetical inaccuracy is removed, the addition of Rs. 18 crores will come to half of that. Therefore, if the arithmetical accuracies are considered and if they are given import to the TP adjustment, the trading manufacturing segment would prima facie fall within the arm s length price and addition on account of ALP of ITeS, subject to other arguments, would also come down substantially. Therefore, according to us, prima facie balance of convenience lies in favor of the assessee. As the assessee has already deposited Rs. 4.4 crores, which is more than 20% of the outstanding d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
