9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der: 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in re-computation of the arm's length price ('ALP') of the international transactions entered by the Appellant, by proposing an upward adjustment of INR 88,66,039. 1.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in not granting the benefit of second proviso to section 92C(1) of the Act which states that if variation between the arm's length price so determined and price at which the international transaction has actually been undertaken does not exceed three percent (3%), arm's length price shall be deemed to be the price at which the internat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ointed out that the assessee had selected 9 comparables for the purpose. That the TPO while examining the ALP determination by the assessee rejected two comparables selected by the assessee thus resulting in the PLI of the comparables arriving at 5.24%. Applying this PLI he determined the adjustment to be made to the international transaction of the assessee at Rs. 7,37,64,846/-. The calculation of the same is reproduced at para 4.9 of the TPO's order as under: 1 Operating Revenue (A) 3555081376 2 Operating Cost (B) 3448326339 3 Arm's length margin (OP/OC) 5.24% 4 Operating profit 106755037 5 OP/OC of the assessee company 3.10% 6 OP at arms length price [OC*5.235%} 180519883.8 7 Adjustment u/s 92CA (6-4) 7,37,64,846 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the matter back to the AO to apply the direction of the DRP to grant adjustment to the arm's length price of the transaction by +/- 3% in terms of section 92C(1) of the Act. 7. The ld.DR when confronted with this fact, during the course of hearing on 12.12.2024 sought some time to go through the facts of the case. Accordingly, the case was adjourned for hearing to 26.12.2024, noting the pleading of the ld.counsel for the assessee vide order sheet entry as under: Assessee represented by: Shri Dhinal Shah, AR Department represented by: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT. DR. The ld. DR sought adjournment, stating that he requires some time to prepare the case. The Id. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand stated that there is a shor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
