9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 31/07/2012. Although the assessee has raised as many as 10 Grounds of appeal, however, Ld. Authorized Representative for assessee, at the time of hearing, submitted that the assessee is not contesting Ground Nos.1,4,5,7 & 8. Accordingly, all these grounds are treated as not pressed. The remaining ground as agitated before us, reads as under: - "The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax - Range 16(3) Mumbai, based on the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel/ erred: - 1. Not Pressed 2. in computing adjustment arising out of arms length pricing on the entire turnover of the assessee instead of restricting the same to the international transactions with the Associate Enterprise. 3. In computing the adjustment arising out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be at Arm's Length Price. 2.3 However, rejecting 4 comparable as selected by the assessee and adding 2 new comparable, Ld. TPO worked out mean PLI of 4 entities to be 5.89% as pitied against assessee's PLI of 4.80%. One of the entities namely M/s Suashish Diamonds Ltd. as selected by the assessee, was rejected on account of Related Party Transactions [RPT] of more than 20%. 2.4 Applying the PLI of 5.89%, ALP sales were computed by Ld. TPO to be Rs. 448.33 Crores as against Rs. 443.71 Crores as reflected by the assessee. Accordingly, TP adjustment of Rs. 4.62 Crores was proposed in TPO's order u/s 92CA (3) dated 14/10/2011 which was incorporated in draft assessment order dated 12/12/2011. As per the finding of Ld. TPO, the ALP of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of matter back to the file of Ld. TPO/ Ld. AO. 4.2 The Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], Shri V.K. Agarwal, on the other hand, submitted that computations submitted by the assessee, would require reappreciation by lower authorities. 5. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record. We find that the entity namely M/s Suashish Diamonds Ltd. has been excluded on account of RPT filter. However, keeping in view the submissions made by Ld. AR that this entity has not crossed RPT filter, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. TPO / Ld. AO to consider the RPT computations as submitted by Ld. AR before us. If the said comparable do not cross RPT threshold as suggested by Ld. AR, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the assessee. Since the assessee could not file requisite evidences, Ld. AO allowed Rs. 6.01 Lacs as revenue expenditure and disallowed the balance amount of Rs. 7.35 Lacs. The depreciation @60% was allowed on opening WDV of such expenditure. We find that this ground has been adjudicated by the Tribunal in AY 2007-08 in the following manner: - After having carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties and the findings of the DRP, we find that insofar as the directions on account of AMC for maintenance of software given by the DRP is concerned, the same appears to be very reasonable and no interference is called for. However, with regard to other expenditure, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify this contention of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
