TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P very critic and there is no addressing the issues raised by the assessee mentioned herein above and it was not properly adjudicated. Being of, we are not in a position to uphold the order of the DRP as it is not consistent with the provisions of sec.144C of the Act. We find that the Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India [ 2008 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] has held that even an administrative order has to be consistent with the rules of natural justice . The same view has been taken in the case of GAP International Sourcing India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT [ 2010 (12) TMI 94 - ITAT, NEWDELHI] Further, in the case of M/s. Adobe Systems India Private Ltd. [ 2011 (1) TMI 933 - ITAT NEW DELHI] held that when the DRP passed the order in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price (ALP) of the international transactions entered by the assessee with its Associated Enterprise (AE). 3) The Hon ble DRP/ learned TPO has erred .in rejecting the economic analysis and Operating Profit, Margin on Assets selected as Profit Level Indictor (PU) and in conducting a fresh economic analysis detemination of arm s length price (ALP) for the impugned international transaction. 4) The Hon ble DRP/ learned TPO computed Operating Profit Margin over Operating Cost [OP/OC] 5.49% while computing the ALP. The OP/CC of the AE of the appellant i.e., CET SA, Belgium, 2.20% for the fiscal year 2010, whereas the OP/OC of the appellant was (-) 0.77% for the financial 2010-11. The higher adjustment on account of ALP results in taxing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oposing an upward adjustment of 1.86 crores. The DRP in its order dated 28..12.2015 had held the case in favour of the Revenue and directed the TPO to exclude interest expenses. On giving effect to the directions of the DRP, the adjustment stands at 1.83 crores. Aggrieved with the direction of DRP the assessee is in appeal before us. 4.1 The ld.A.R submitted that Ground Nos.1 2 are too general, which does not require adjudication. 4.1.1 Regarding Ground Nos.3, 4, 6, 7, ld.A.R submitted that the DRP has not given any specific findings on this issue. 4.1.2 Regarding ground No.5, ld.A.R submitted that the DRP has not considered this ground. 4.1.3 Regarding Ground No.8, ld.A.R submitted that the DRP had given direction on this iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents. This was upheld by the Co-ordinate Bench of Chennai Tribunal in the case of M/s.Mobis India Ltd. Lastly, ld.D.R submitted that the comparables Power Build Ltd., and Accurate Transformers Ltd. have been identified only on the basis of their functional similarity with the assessee. In addition, the transactional net margin method is highly amenable to product differences. Hence, the ld.D.R prayed that the same has been rightly retained as comparables by the TPO which has also been upheld by the DRP. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, assessee filed objection against Draft Assessment Order before the DRP. The DRP has not properly dealt the issue in proper perspectives. The primary objec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y direction issued by the DRP shall be binding on the AO. (11) No direction under sub-s. (5) shall be issued unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee and the AO on such directions which are prejudicial to the interest of the assessee or the interest of the Revenue, respectively. (12) No direction under sub-s. (5) shall be issued after nine months from the end of the rnonth in which the draft order is forwarded to the eligible assessee. (13) Upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-s. (5), the AO shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in s. 153, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
