TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d parties - DRP recorded this finding on the basis of documents submitted by the assessee and the report of TPO on same. The assessee could reconcile price of 80% of the goods exported to AE vis-a-vis the price charged by AE from third parties. The Department has not been able to controvert factual findings of the DRP based on the report of TPO. Under such circumstances, no adjustment is warranted. We find no infirmity in the impugned findings of DRP. The appeal of Revenue is devoid of merit, hence, dismissed. - IT (TP) A No. 1963/MUM/2014 and C.O. No. 88/MUM/2014 - - - Dated:- 21-5-2021 - Pramod Kumar, Vice President And Vikas Awasthy, Member (J) For the Appellant : Sushil Kumar Mishra For the Respondents : Madhur Agrawal ORDER Per Vikas Awasthy, JM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the assessment order dated 29/01/2014 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has filed Cross Objections (in short 'the CO') in the appeal of Revenue. 2. The Department has raised solitary ground assailing the findings of Dispute Resolution Panel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order in accordance with the directions of the DRP. Hence, the present appeal by Revenue. 5. Shri Madhur Agrawal appearing on behalf of the assessee at the outset submitted, that the assessee has been consistently following RPM to benchmark its international transactions. The TPO/Assessing Officer has been accepting ALP determined by applying RPM since assessment year 2004-05. Even in subsequent assessment years the TPO/Assessing Officer has been consistently accepting RPM adopted by the assessee to determine ALP of the exports to AEs. The TPO for the first time has disturbed the method of determining ALP in assessment year 2009-10, despite the fact that there was no material change in the nature of transactions, goods or other factors determining the sale price. The ld. Counsel for the assessee furnished chart tabulating the method followed by assessee in the assessment years starting from assessment year 2004-05 to assessment year 2013-14 and the acceptance of same by TPO. The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed that the order of TPO accepting RPM as the most appropriate method for assessment year 2006-07 is at page 197, for assessment year 2007-08 at page 206, for assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riate method to benchmark its international transactions of export of socks to AEs. The first contention of the assessee is that the assessee has been consistently adopting RPM as the most appropriate method to benchmark ALP of transactions with AEs and the TPO has accepted the same in the past, as well as in later assessment years. To substantiate the point, the assessee has furnished copy of TPO orders for AY 2006-07 to 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The chart furnished by assessee tabulating the most appropriate method adopted by assessee since AY 2004-05 till AY 2013-14 is reproduced herein below: Assessment Year Method followed in Form no. 3CEB TPO Order status 2004-05 Resale Price Method Accepts the sales price at arm s length 2005-06 Resale Price Method Accepts the sales price at arm s length 2006-07 Resale Price Method Accepts the sales price at arm s length 2007-08 Resale Price Method PB Pg. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how difference in facts warranting a different view. For the sake of ready reference, relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced herein below: 8. We have considered rival submissions. We note that the Revenue has been accepting the TNM method as most proper method for benchmarking the aggregated international transactions with AE's over the period of time. The same has been accepted by the Revenue on examination of the issue. It is found that the TPO had for the other years on same facts has accepted the fact that there was no difference in two segments involved for transfer pricing. Thus, consistently accepting the TNM method as the most appropriate method to determine the ALP of the respondent's aggregated International Transaction till Assessment Year 2015-16. The Revenue has not been able to show any material difference in the subject assessment year which would justify a change in the most appropriate method (TNM method) adopted while benchmarking the international transactions. So far as the order dated 1st August, 2018 of this Court in case of John Deere India (P) Ltd. (supra) admitting the appeal of the Revenue is correct, we find that it has not been admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
