TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... month from the end of the month in which the ld. DRP directions is received. This provision is mandatory which has placed strict adherence to the ld. A.O. to pass the assessment order even without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee which further implies strict compliance of the said provision. The bench had sought for clarification from the ld. counsels as to the date of receipt of ld. DRP's direction by the ld. A.O. and the ld. AR had submitted the proof of receipt which is found to be on 31.01.2022. From the above observation, it is observed that the ld. A.O. has passed the assessment order beyond the time period prescribed under the provisions of the Act. We, therefore, are inclined to hold the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her the learned Dispute Resolution Panel 1, Mumbai ( DRP ) erred in confirming/enhancing the adjustments to Rs. 6,57,04,938/-. 3. Without prejudice to ground 1, on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. DRP erred in confirming the action of learned TPO of rejecting the benchmarking analysis using Transaction Net Margin Method ( TNMM ) conducted by Appellant, based on the comparable companies selected by Appellant thereby making an addition of Rs. 6,57,04,938 of the alleged difference in the arm s length price of the international transaction of provision of Marketing Support Services ( MSS ). 4. Without prejudice to ground 1, on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP erred in confirming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prejudice to ground 1, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the learned TPO /DRP has erred in not appreciating the fact that the benchmarking approach adopted by the Appellant for the provision of MSS in preceding assessment years are consistently followed by appellant and accepted by department in earlier year. 8. Without prejudice to ground 1, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the learned TPO/DRP has erred in making adjustment of Rs. 58,027 on project management services provided by the Associaed Enterprise ( AE ) to the Appellant pursuant to intercompany agreement. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of Cassia Gum Powder in its plant located at Sabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the ld. DRP, the ld.A.O. passed the assessment order dated 28.05.2021. Pursuant to this, the Hon ble DRP passed the direction dated 28.01.2022. The ld. TPO vide notice dated 31.01.2022 sought for certain details from the assessee which were furnished by the assessee vide its submission dated 02.02.2022. It is observed that the assessee has contended that the A.O. as per the provision of section 144C(13) of the Act was required to complete the assessment and the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP s direction is received and had raised a ground that the assessment order is barred by limitation. 4. The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) had raised the jurisdictional ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts AE s which was challenged by the ld. A.O./TPO. It is observed that the assessee has been providing independent marketing services to its AE s and has undertaken various international transactions during the year under consideration. The ld. A.O/TPO proposed an upward adjustment of Rs. 5,60,10,321/- to the total income of the assessee in respect of the said international transaction pertaining to the marketing support services and determined the ALP accordingly. The ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO' for short) rejected the bench marking analysis adopted by the assessee by applying TNMM method and also rejected the comparable companies considered by the assessee. The assessee had raised its objection before the Hon ble DRP which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since the TPO had sought for certain details from the assessee and only after the perusal of the said details the impugned assessment order was passed. This according to us was not a justifiable cause for the delay in passing the assessment order within the period of limitation prescribed u/s. 144C(13) of the Act. It is trite to extract the provision of section 144C(13) of the Act for ease of reference: Reference to dispute resolution panel. 144C (13) Upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5), the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 or section 153B, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
