TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The sale transactions have been benchmarked using cost plus method (CPM) which would be Most Appropriate Method considering the functions of the assessee. It is also undisputed fact that similar methodology as adopted by the assessee in other years has been accepted by Ld. TPO. Therefore, TNMM method could not be applied to the case of the assessee. The issue has rightly been adjudicated by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. Adjustment made for import of raw material - as alleged that the price paid by the assessee was higher than the cost from original supplier. Therefore, Resale Price Method (RPM) as adopted by the assessee was rejected and Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method was adopted to arrive at this adjustment. However, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business, the adjustments for the Asst. Year 2004-05 is also not called for. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to note that that there is no estoppel in taxation matters and the officer is not bound by the method followed in the earlier years or subsequent years. Each and every Asst. Year is independent and is not dependent on earlier years proceedings. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to note that the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd., reported in (2012) 341 ITR 385which has been relied upon has not been accepted by the Department and a SLP has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is still pending. 5. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o comparable entities and accordingly, an adjustment of Rs.609.44 Lacs was proposed by Ld. TPO. Another adjustment of Rs.35.55 Lacs was made for import of raw material since it was held that the price paid by the assessee was higher than the cost from original supplier. Therefore, rejecting Resale Price Method (RPM) as adopted by the assessee, Ld. TPO benchmarked the same using Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method and accordingly, proposed this adjustment. Both the adjustments were incorporated in the assessment order which were subject matter of challenge before Ld. CIT(A). 3.3 During appellate proceedings, the assessee, inter-alia, submitted that it as a focused contract manufacturer only on the basis of know-how design supplied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le of finished goods, it was noted that the assessee was a contract manufacturer and therefore, the margins would be lower in comparison to regular manufacturer / exporter. The risk was entirely borne by overseas entities. The comparable entities as selected by Ld. TPO could not be held comparable due to difference in functions. Since the assessee is 100% EOU and claim exemption u/s 10B, there would be no incentive to shift profits outside India. Also, no such adjustment was made by Ld. TPO for AYs 2005-06 to 2007-08. Therefore, the proposed adjustments were deleted. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 4. We find that the assessee is 100% EOU and its profits are exempt. The entire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
