Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2017 (3) TMI 1032

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....come Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act". 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal. "1 The ld. AO erred in law and on facts in making an upward adjustment of Rs. 4,41,77,501 u/s 92CA(3) of the Act in respect of international transactions of the appellant. 2 The ld. AO erred in law and on facts in not passing an order in conformity with DRP directions as required u/s 144C(13) of the Act, thereby completely disregarded provision of the Act and passing an invalid order which needs to be quashed. 3 The ld. AO erred in law and on facts in not following directions passed by the DRP u/s 144(5) of the Act to, inter-alia, (i) delete the entire adjustment of payment of management fees of Rs. 32,218,260; (ii) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nature while computing margin earned by the appellant from the manufacturing segment. 10. The ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in rejecting use of multiple year data by the appellant as prescribed under Rule 10B(4) of the Act. 11. Without prejudice to our contentions that the margin of the appellant is at arm's length and no adjustment ought to have been made, the ld. AO erred in not granting benefit of 5% range as per the provisions of the Act. 12. The learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Baroda ("learned AO") erred in law and on facts by disallowing Appellant's claim of sales tax payment under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') amounting to Rs. 9,16,852. 13 The learned AO fai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icer has not followed above Dispute Resolution Panel's directions in assessee's objections preferred against the draft assessment order dated 24.03.2013; in framing the impugned assessment. He informs us that the assessee has already filed necessary rectification before the Assessing Officer on 26.02.2015 as pending till date. He accordingly clarifies that the assessee further does not wish to press for its substantive grounds 2-3 since a DRP's directions are very much binding on an Assessing Officer u/s.144C(10) of the Act. He thereafter concedes assessee's fourth substantive ground as well to be general in nature. 4. Shri Soparkar then invites our attention to assessee's fifth and sixth substantive grounds in seeking to include two entit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Transfer Pricing Officer thereafter chose to include two comparables M/s. Rambal Ltd. and M/s. STI Sanoh India Ltd. to arrive at upward adjustments of Rs. 1,90,59,241/- in manufacturing segment forming subject matter of adjudication in the instant substantive grounds. The Assessing Officer framed a draft assessment on 24.03.2014. The assessee preferred objections before the dispute resolution panel seeking to include its four comparables and exclude the above two entities. This panel in turn has upheld the Transfer Pricing Officer's action in question excluding the above two comparables leaving the assessee aggrieved. 7. We have heard rival submissions. Relevant findings perused. There does not appear to be any dispute that the lower au....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er's order that he has ignored all this material for excluding the above two comparables. 9. It is further evident from the case file that the assessee as well as the above two entities do have the same NIC codes of 30913 indicating to be having broader comparability in automotive ancillary segment. These two entities profiles reveal them to be engaged in manufacturing activity of auto ancillary parts not disputed by the lower authorities. We accordingly quote assessee's TNMM method having hallmark of broader product similarity as well as various decisions i.e. ITA No.3223/Ahd/2011 Gemstone Glass Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT decided on 30.10.2015 as well as hon'ble Delhi high court's judgment in [2015] 56 taxmann.com 417 (Del) Chryscapital Investmen....