Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (6) TMI 820

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssee was justified in offering volume discount to AE, as the quantity sold to AE was more than 40 times the quantity sold to non AE in domestic market. Assesse had offered volume discount to AE on a product that was slow moving and had miniscule demand. The assessee had already stopped manufacturing of the said product. This fact is evident from annual accounts of the assessee for the Financial Year ending on 31/03/2010. The assessee temporarily stopped manufacturing Di-Penta since January 2009, as there was global economic slowdown and the demand for the product had reduced substantially. In the case of Clarient Chemicals (India) Ltd [ 2013 (11) TMI 1703 - ITAT, MUMBAI ] in principle accepted volume discount to AE, where there was subst .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ry. During the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal the assessee entered into International Transactions with its Associated Enterprise (AE) at Germany for sale of Di-Penta. The assessee applied CUP as the most appropriate method to benchmark International Transactions with its AE. The assessee sold 18,500 Kgs of Di-Penta having total value of Rs.47,39,968/- (@ Rs.256 per Kg.) to its AE. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) accepted CUP as most appropriate to benchmark assessee s International Transactions. The TPO made adjustment of Rs.14,24,500/- to the Arms Length Price (ALP) of the International Transaction on the ground that the assessee has sold the same product to Non-AE in India at a higher price i.e. @ Rs.333/- per Kg. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... com 96 (Del-Trib.) The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that in assessment year 2009-10, the Tribunal had restored the issue to the CIT(A), for re-adjudication as the details of rate and volume were not furnished by the assessee. 5. Per contra, Shri Uodal Raj Singh, representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that in the earlier assessment years volume discounts claimed by the assessee were not allowed. 6. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. The assessee in appeal has raised two grounds. In ground No.1 the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a Marketing (P) Ltd. (supra), Delhi Bench of the Tribunal accepted discount on export of goods to AE where the assessee had sold old stock/ slow moving items to its AE. 8. Thus, in view of the facts discussed above, we are of the considered view that upward adjustment made in respect of sale of Di-Penta to AE is unjustified and hence, deserves to be deleted. We hold and direct accordingly. The ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed. 9. In ground No.2, the assessee has assailed initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Challenge to initiation of penalty proceedings at this stage is premature, the ground No.2 of the appeal is dismissed as premature. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ctor ground realities in mind while interpreting the time limit for the pronouncement of the order. Law is not brooding omnipotence in the sky. It is a pragmatic tool of the social order. The tenets of law being enacted on the basis of pragmatism, and that is how the law is required to interpreted. The interpretation so assigned by us is not only inconsonance with the letter and spirit of rule 34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates