9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai [ The ld CIT (A) ] dated 30th August, 2019 for Assessment Year 2012-13. 02. The learned Assessing Officer has raised the following grounds in ITA No.6819/Mum/2019:- Revenue's ground 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that as ALP cannot be held at nil, "other method fail to survive" without appreciating the fact that the same was done by the TPO by giving a clear finding that no services were provided by the AE ?" 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that "it cannot be said that no services were rendered" only on the basis of email exchanges between the assessee and the AE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 4. The Appellant prays that the additions made by the learned TPO/ learned AO deleted and consequential relief be granted. 04. The facts of the case shows that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of creating, producing and acquiring content for television broadcast and film production of various programmes. It is a part of Endemol Group , a global leader in television and audio visual entertainment industry. The group creates entertainment ideas which are offered for broadcast. 05. Assessee filed its return of income on 24.09.2012 at Rs.6,21,49,420/-. The case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny. As the assessee has entered into an several international transactions and amongst tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermined and for what services. He further held that the services are in nature of shareholder services and duplicative in nature for which no charges are warranted. Accordingly, he determined the ALP of the above services at Rs. Nil by order passed under section 92CA (3) of the Act on 25th January, 2016. 07. Based on this, the learned Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order on 29th February, 2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.8,42,07,310/-, where the above transfer pricing adjustments were made. As the assessee did not file any objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel, he passed a final order under section 143(3) of the Act on 30th March, 2016 at Rs.8,42,07,310/-. 08. The assessee is aggrieved w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that ld CIT (A) and could not have remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer/ TPO. 010. The assessee is aggrieved for the reason that the CIT(A) should have deleted the addition and could not have remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 011. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the CIT(A) does not have power to remand the matter back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer. She further submitted that merely on the basis of the emails it cannot be stated that the services were required to be rendered, rendered and resulted into benefit to the assessee. She, further referred to the nature of services and stated that these Intragroup services are merely shareholder services a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of services, assessee produced various emails exchanges and also submitted a note of the benefit derived by the assessee. The assessee also submitted that these are not shareholder services or duplicated services and therefore there is a rendition of services which are valuable and which therefore are paid off. These evidences got rejected by the ld TPO. The Ld CIT(A) categorically held that these emails reveal continuous business exchange of activities mentioned in the agreement. The emails also show the various cost allocation which shows the reasonable proof of availing these services. The ld CIT(A) therefore held that there are definite programme content shared with the assessee. He further held that quantification of value of services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the email he does not state that no services have been rendered but emails have been rejected stating that these are shareholders activity or duplicative in nature. The learned CIT(A) examined the emails and gave categorical finding about the rendition of the services. This finding remains uncontroverted. Further, if the learned TPO was not satisfied with the contents of the email, he could have further probed the transaction with respect to various programme and its content. In view of this facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) in holding that the peculiar Intra group services are shown to have been rendered by the associate enterprises to the assessee. Therefore, he directed it to be benchmarked under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
