Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (6) TMI 927

se of transfer pricing - TPO has taken OP/Sales as Profit Level Indicator (PLI) and taken the segmental of the comparable companies wherever it was available - Held that:- Order dated 30.4.2010 passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), New Delhi u/s. 144C of the I.T. Act, 1961 is a cryptic and non speaking one. None of the contentions raised by the assessee, have been dealt with by the DRP. Under the circumstances, we have no other alternative, but to remand back the matter to the file of the DRP for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law. The DRP shall pass a speaking order and address all the contentions raised by the assessee.- Decided in fvaour of assessee for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No. 3942/DEL/2010 - 30-3-2015 - Shri H .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ns carried out by the assessee and directed the AO to add a sum of ₹ 1,67,41,313/- to the taxable income of the assessee. The assessee challenged the draft assessment order before the DRP. The DRP has passed a cryptic order on 30.4.2010 and consequently the final order has been passed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved with the AO s order, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- 1. That the assessmg officer erred on facts and m law in completing the assessment under section 144C read with sectionI43(3) of the Income-tax Act (the Act) at an income of ₹ 43,65,760 as against the returned loss of ₹ 1,23,96,776. 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in making an addition of ₹ 1,67 .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

pport thereof. 4. That the assessing officer erred on facts and In law in disregarding the segmental profitability submitted by the appellant alleging that the correctness of allocation of expenses and revenue to AE and non AE segment by the appellant were not reliable, without pointing out any specific error in the segmentation of profitability made by the appellant. 5. That the assessing officer erred on facts and In law in undertaking benchmarking analysis applying TNMM considering certain external comparable companies disregarding the internal comparison available on record. 6. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that internal comparison for application of TNMM undertaken by the appellant was accepte .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

officer erred on facts and in law in considering Organon (India) Limited as part of the set of comparable companies for applying TNMM on entity-wide basis without appreciating that significant part of turnover of the said company was from manufacturing operations of different drugs, capsules, contraceptives, injectables, cream, powder and other products as opposed to trading of "diagnostic products" undertaken by the appellant. 7.5 That the assessing officer alternatively ought to have considered operating profit margin of Organon (India) Ltd. at (-) 6.91% attributed to trading segment instead of the entitywide margin of 15.38%, for undertaking the benchmarking analysis. 7.6 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ant at 3.46% as against 4.29% after taking into account rental income from equipment and after sale service Income. 8. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in restricting depreciation on computer peripherals and accessories to 15% as against 60% claimed by the appellant. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary from the aforesaid grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 4. After hearing, Shri Neeraj Jain, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee and Shri Judy James, Ld. Departmental Representative/Standing Counsel for the Revenue, we find that the Order dated 30.4.2010 passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), New Delhi u/s. 144C of the I.T. Act, 1961 is a cryptic and non speaking one. None of the contention .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||