9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engaged in the business of manufacture and distribution of ladies inner ware and readymade garments on contract basis filed its return of income for the AY 2014-15 dated 29/11/2014 and admitted NIL income after setting off of brought forward loss at Rs.1,90,96,216/-. The assessee paid the tax U/s. 115JB of the Act. The return was summarily processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act on 23/12/2014 accepting the return of income. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice U/s. 143(2) was issued on 31/8/2015. In response, the assessee submitted the copy of income tax return, computation of income tax, tax audit report, Form 3CEB & Form 29B to the Ld. AO. Subsequently, notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on 12/7/2016 and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Ld. DRP the assessee raised various objections particularly on the rejection of the TP Documentation and selection of comparables by the Ld. TPO without assigning any proper reasons for rejection of the comparables. The Ld. DRP considering the objections raised by the assessee, upheld the order of the Ld. TPO. The Ld. DRP also rejected the additional grounds filed by the assessee citing the delay in filing the additional grounds. Considering the directions of the Ld. DRP, the Ld. AO passed the final assessment order giving effect to the directions of the Ld. DRP. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The assessee has raised various grounds of appeal as detailed in Form-36 of the appeal. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Admittedly the assessee has adopted the TNM method for benchmarking its international transactions which were not disputed by the Ld. Revenue Authorities. However, the Ld. TPO has rejected the TP documentation adopted by the assessee which is as follows: Sl no Company Name Unadjusted average margin-3 years (%) 1. Arviva Industries (India) Ltd (11.57) 2. Celestial Knits & Fabs Pvt Ltd 3.10 3. Vijay Garments Ltd 3.43 4. Dhruv Globals 3.64 5. Celebrity Fashions Ltd 0.96 6. Samtex Fashions Ltd 3.21 7. Kamdgiri Fashion Ltd 5.40 Arithmetic Mean 1.17 6. As per the TP documentation study of comparable company selected by the assessee, the Arithmetic Mean of the ALP is 1.17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven in inventory valuation amounting to Rs. 1,04,45,656/- and adjustment on account of extraordinary cost and capacity adjustment wherein the assessee was not provided any opportunity to represent before the Ld. TPO. We therefore find that plea of the Ld. AR that matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. TPO deserves consideration. In view of the above discussions, following the principles of natural justice, we consider it deem and fit to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. TPO and thereby the assessee may be provided opportunity to make its submissions and rebut the TP documentation adopted by the Ld. TPO. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
