TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding of the CIT(A) and keeping in view that the difference between the sale of L&T LLC and Arm's Length Price is only 3.35% which is well within the limit of 5% uphold the finding of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer - The ground taken by the revenue is, therefore, rejected. - 2642 (MUM.) OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 16-11-2010 - D.K. AGARWAL, RAJENDRA SINGH, JJ. Ms. Heena Doshi for the Appellant. Ajit Kumar Sinha for the Respondent. ORDER D.K Agarwal, Judicial Member ‑ This appeal preferred by the revenue is directed against the order dated 12-2-2009 passed by the ld. CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2002-03. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed along with the return of income. The Assessing Officer made reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for computing the arms length price under section 92CA. The TPO vide his report dated 13-12-2006 has made an order for upward adjustment of Rs. 7,28,865. The Assessing Officer after considering the assessee's submission in this regard rejected the same and made disallowance of Rs. 7,28,865 under section 92CA(3) of the Act and accordingly completed the assessment at an income of Rs. 19,97,08,280 vide order dated 26-12-2006 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) on the issue of deduction under section 80HHC in respect of profit on DEPB held that assessee has satisfied both the conditions giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u Colours Chemicals (supra), set aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to reconsider the claim of the assessee in accordance with law i.e., in the light of the recent decision in the case of Kalpataru Colours Chemicals (supra), after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds taken by the revenue are, therefore, partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Ground No.4 is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 7,28,865 made by the Assessing Officer under section 92CA(3). 8. At the time of hearing the ld. DR supports the order of the Assessing Officer. 9. On the other hand the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the ld. CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from the details filed by the appellant before the TPO as well as at the appellate stage that the prices realized from unrelated parties for an item is not uniform but higher or lower than the prices charged to related party (L T LLC). That is to say that there are transactions for which data has been furnished, which shows that the appellant has charged higher rates from its AE as compared to third party uncontrolled transactions. The TPO while making the adjustments took only those figures in which valves were sold at the lower prices to the USA based AE while ignoring those figures and data where the same were sold at the higher price. Thus while making the adjustments, he disregarded the fact that the appellant has also sold valves to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
