TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances, 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, C.O. NO.88/MUM/2014 [Arising out of IT(TP)A NO.1963/MUM/2014 - - - Dated:- 21-5-2021 - SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal For the Revenue : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra 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 (DRP)/assessment order. The same reads as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in rejecting TNMM method and thereby consequently deleting the adjustment for the transaction pertaining to export of socks merely accepting the details of the invoices su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplying 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 assessment year 2008- 09 at page 215, for assessment year 2010-11 at page 224 and for assessment year 2011-12 at page 233 of the Paper Book. The ld. Counsel for the assessee asserted that in the absence of any material change in facts, the TPO cannot deviate from a settled view. The ld. Counsel emphasised the need to maintain consistency in applyin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 AY2013-14 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. 205 Accepts the sales price at arm s length 2008-09 Resale Price Method Accepts the sales price at arm s length 2009-10 Resale Price Method Under Dispute 2010-11 Resale Price Method Accepts the sales price ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 admitted on the question which arises in the present petition, i.e. the effect of the Revenue consistently accepting TNM Method as the most appropriate method for benchmarking international transactions with AE's in the absence of any material change of the facts or law. This is not the issue on which the appeal of the revenue has been admitted by the Court in the case of John Deere India (P) Ltd. (supra). Therefore, it will have no applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
