9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the assessee and the A.E. but on the evidence of specific services having been rendered by the tax payer to the AE either directly or indirectly. 2. The CIT(A) erred in directing the assessing officer to make adjustment only Rs.25,41,757/- i.e. 10% of Rs.2,54,17,576/- being expenses incurred during 1.1.2004 to 14.3.2004. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is a 100% subsidiary of M/s Convergys Information Management Inc. USA and is also registered as a 100% EOU under the STPI Scheme. It is engaged in providing software development and product support services to its parent company. The relevant financial year 2003-04 is the first year of operation for which the assessee has filed its return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act. On appeal the CIT(A) directed that the expenses incurred during 1.1.2004 to 14.3.2004 is to be treated as expenses incurred towards the product development service, on which the assessee is eligible for 10% mark up. Hence, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that there is no evidence regarding the price adopted by the assessee. As such Arm's Length Price arrived at by the Transfer Pricing Officer is to be considered. The difference between the arm's length price worked out by the Transfer Pricing Officer and the price shown by the assessee at Rs.38,90,247/- is to be considered as income of the assessee. She relied on the order of the assessing officer as well as the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue, the actual transfer price falls with 5% range of the arm's length price. 7. He further submitted that if one were to apply the above benefit of 5% per the second Proviso to Section 92C (2) as applicable for the assessment year 2004-05, the assessee's actual transfer price will be compliant with the arm's length principle without a need for any adjustment. 8. He placed relied on the following judgements: 1. Development Consultants (P) Ltd. (2008), 23 SOT 455, Kolkata 2. SSSkoda Auto Pvt. Ltd. (2009), (122, TTJ 699 ) (Pune) 3. Sony India (P) Ltd. (2008) (114 ITD, 488) (Delhi). 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
