9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an error in law and consequently that the adjustment made in the present case was unsupported by proper application of Rules 10B or 10C of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [hereafter "the 1962 Rules]". The assessee is a manufacturer as well as a trader; it was incorporated as a joint-venture and eventually became 100% subsidiary of M/s. Cargill Mauritius Limited. The commodities it manufactures and trades are edible oil and plastic films. For AY 2007-08, it declared net loss of Rs. 26,85,38,165/-; upon selection for scrutiny, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the returns involved international transactions with its Associated Enterprise (AE); the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), who largely accepted the Arm's Length ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Comparable Uncontrolled Prices Method (CUP) but during the course of the proceedings, it was modified to TNMM. Its contention was firstly rejected by advertence to Rule 10 of the 1962 Rules which arms the AO/TPO with the discretion of applying the most appropriate method. Next dealing with the application of Berry Ratio, the Tribunal then proceeded to deal with the Berry Ratio and other arguments pertaining to cash discount on advance payments; it observed as follows: "9. The ld. AR has contended that Berry ratio is applied while benchmarking the merchanting activity transactions. The concept of Berry Ratio has been approved by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal. We find this submission of the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee was in explaining the merchanting activities transactions and the discounts offered for prepayment through TNMM, whereas both the sides agree that CUP is the most appropriate method. Once, having accepted CUP as the most appropriate method there was no need for the assessee for explaining the transaction by applying TNMM. The assessee has to explain the benchmarking of transaction by applying the most appropriate method, i.e. the CUP in the present case. We do not find any merit in the submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee. Accordingly, ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised in the appeal by the assessee are dismissed." This Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal's findings cannot be faulted. The interest offering which the assessee em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
