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

2024 (12) TMI 373

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeals arising out of the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), Bangalore-12 dated 30/05/2024 and 14/06/2024 in respect of the A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. 2. Since the issues involved in the above two appeals are identical in nature, these two appeals as well as the cross objections are disposed of by way of a common order for the sake of convenience. 3. We will take up the appeal relating to the A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA No. 1429/Bang/2024 as the lead case. The brief facts related to A.Y. 2008-09 are that the assessee is a subsidiary of Toyota Motor Corporation, a company incorporated under the laws of Japan. The assessee filed their return of income on 29/09/2008 declaring a total income of Rs. 365,08,48,458/-. Thereafter, the return wa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee made a submission before the Ld.CIT(A) that when the margin was accepted by the TPO to be at arms length price,the royalty could not be separately benchmarked. In support of their contention, the assessee relied on their own case of the ITAT, Bangalore in respect of the A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2016-17. The Ld.CIT(A) considered the decisions of the assessee for the A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2016-17 in which the Tribunal had decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that royalty cannot be separately benchmarked, and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09 also. 5. As against the said order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal for A.Y. 2008-09 and raised the following grou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appeal filed by the revenue. 7. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 8. The only dispute arises in the appeal is whether the royalty can be separately benchmarked when the margin was accepted by the TPO to be at arms length price. On similar facts and circumstances, in the assessee's own case, in respect of the A.Y. 2018-19 in IT(TP)A No. 863/Bang/2023 dated 22/01/2024, the Tribunal had followed the earlier order of the Tribunal in IT(TP)A Nos. 421 & 422/Bang/2023 for the A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17 dated 21/12/2023 wherein the Tribunal had extracted the following findings. "12. After hearing both the sides, perusing the entire material on record and the orders of the lower authoritie .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 13.1 The ld.DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and he submitted that since the assessee has adopted TNMM and the TPO has also accepted the methods for calculation ALP, the TPO has not made separate adjustment in regard to payment of royalty, therefore, this issue should not be raised by the assessee. 13.2 After hearing both the sides, we observe from the order of the TPO, he has calculated the ALP in regard to royalty payment determined under TNMM of Rs. 154.54 crores however, no separate adjustment of royalty has been proposed by the TPO since the TNMM was adopted at NTT level which includes royalty also. The ld. DRP also expressed his opinion that the TPO has not proposed any adjustment towards royalty payment. Considering .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and the several orders passed by this Tribunal in the assessee's own case, we are not inclined to accept the grounds raised by the revenue and in effect, we are dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue. 11. The facts involved in ITA No. 1430/Bang/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2009-10 are similar to the facts found in the A.Y. 2008-09 in which we have given our finding and applying the same mutatis mutandis, we also dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue for A.Y. 2009-10. 12. Insofar as the C.O. Nos. 35 & 36/Bang/2024, we are of the view that the said cross objection petitions are only a counter to the main appeals filed by the revenue and also in view of the fact that we are not accepting the grounds raised by the revenue and dismissed .....

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