TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no difference in FAR of US transactions and non US transactions. HELD THAT:- It is true that this is an appeal by the assessee but it is equally true that the other party i.e. the revenue can raise issue under rule 27 orally as settled in the case of Sanjay Sahney [ 2020 (5) TMI 441 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and respectfully following the same the oral request of the DR is accepted. It would be better to refer to the settlement arrived between the competent authority of India and the competent authority of USA to resolve the cases relating to Hewitt India for A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 by adopting the values relating to US related international transaction - No hesitation to direct the AO / TPO to adopt the same approach for the non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 144C(1) of the Act. The Hon'ble DRP while issuing directions under section 144C(5) of the Act did not consider the facts and merits of Appellant's objections to the proposed adjustments, and merely relied on the reasoning given by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing Officer-1 (2) vide order under section 92CA(3) of the Act dated October 31, 2011 without due application of mind and without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter to the Appellant on the following grounds: 1. By summarily rejecting/disregarding the comparability analysis without giving any cogent basis and without demonstrating the inadequacy or infirmity in the economic analysis so conducted by the Assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arbitrary filter of 25 percent without following a cogent economic basis and without establishing any statistical veracity of the presumption/ hypothesis framed. Further, the Ld. TPO has also erred by juxtaposed application of two or more methods to conclude a single benchmarking analysis as application of wages-to-sales screen tantamount to adoption of the cost-plus method. 9. By changing the computation methodology by misconstruing certain line items as operating/ non-operating which represents an unjustified approach. 10. By relying upon data of the comparables for financial year 2007- 08 only for determination of the arm's length price, disregarding the multiple year data approach followed by the Assessee. 11. By ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 92/-against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The Transfer Pricing Adjustment comprises of two parts (i) TP adjustment US Transactions Rs. 417989294/- (ii) TP adjustment non US Transactions Rs. 22648798/- Rs. 440638092/- 7. While hearing the Counsel, Bench came to know that the associated enterprise of the assessee in the USA filed an application under mutual agreement procedure (mAp) with the competent authority of the US under article 27 of the India USDTAA and the settlement has been arrived at between the competent authority of India with respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AP for US transactions and determine the TP adjustment, if any, after affording a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. For this proposition we draw support from the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of J.P. Morgan Services India Private Limited 105 taxmann.com 40. The relevant findings read as under :- 2. For convenience, we may record facts from Income Tax Appeal No.4/2017. The Respondent-Assessee is a private limited company. In the return of income-tax filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2007- 2008, the question of determination of Arm's Length Price of the transaction entered into by the assessee with its international Associated Enterprises came up for cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
