TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit [2010 (1) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein their Lordships have held that there ought to be uniformity in treatment and consistency when the facts and circumstances are identical, particularly in the case of the assessee. In this case also, what Ld. CIT(A) has done is that he has brought uniformity in the treatment and consistency to bring the TP adjustment at par with the treatment adopted by the Department in respect of assessment year 2007-08. - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No.7737/MUM/2012 - - - Dated:- 20-11-2014 - SHRI I.P. BANSAL AND RAJENDRA, JJ. For The Revenue : Shri N. Padmanaban For The Assessee : Shri Ramesh S.Iyer ORDER PER I.P.BANSAL,J.M: This is an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reflected in the cost of goods sold. 2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, designing, developing and assembling of power supplies and related sim-custom design development of power supplies, transformers, toroidal cores, and current transformers control boards. It entered into following international transactions: S.No. Name of the AE Nature of Transaction Amount in Rupees for A.Y 2008-09 Method adopted 1. M/s. Cherokee International, Tustin USA Purchase of raw materials 9,09,54,952 TNMM 2. -do- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missions of the assessee found that for immediate preceding year i.e. for A.Y 2007-08 TPO while calculating 6% mark up had excluded the value of purchase of raw material and 6% mark up was calculated on the net cost of the assessee after excluding value of purchase of raw material. Thus, Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the relief to that extent to the assessee and has recalculated the TP adjustment as follows: ALP margin to be earned by the assessee 6% Total Cost incurred by the appellant Rs.14,76,33,337/- Cost of raw material imported free of cost(A) Rs.9,10,00,000/- The costs attributable to the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said year has adopted this approach after considering the submissions of the assessee and by way of a speaking order. It was further submitted by Ld. AR that assessee has accepted the view point taken in respect of A.Y 2007-08, therefore, did not file any appeal against the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) by which addition of ₹ 1,78,64,680/- has been upheld. Thus, it was submitted by Ld.AR that the order of Ld.CIT(A) being in accordance with the course of action adopted by Department in respect of immediate preceding year, (A.Y. 2007-09) should be upheld. 5. We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. We have carefully gone through the order passed by TPO in respect of A.Y 2007-08. Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
