9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Revenue are reproduced as under: 1. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs.5,17,24,173/- made by the A.O." 2. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate principles of comparability in transfer pricing while directing the comparability of margin to be undertaken between average margin of 14 comparables operating in Indian geography with that of the profitability (PLI/margin) of assessee's overseas Associated Enterprise, M/s. assessee's supplier thereby comparing PLI of AE, a foreign company, with that of Indian comparables?" 3. "Whether, on the facts and cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961?. 7. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in determining the arm's length price (ALP) by taking the foreign AE as the tested party and by rejecting the finding of the AO/TPO that the assessee has to be considered as the tested party?" 8. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in selecting and using certain Indian companies as comparables to determine the ALP by not appreciating the fact that the comparable companies selected by TPO are operating in India, whereas the foreign AE is operating in Thailand, a different geographical location and hence, cannot be used in the instant case, in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have issued the impugned direction inasmuch as the geographical location of the foreign associate enterprise and the Indian companies are completely different and as such, the impugned direction is invalid. 3. None represented on behalf of the assessee despite notifying for the hearing nor was any adjournment sought. It is seen from the record that on the past occasion also none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we were of the opinion that assessee was not interested in prosecuting the cross-objection and responding to the appeal of the Revenue, therefore, we heard the appeal and cross objection ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm materials to Aje india during 2012." The AR of the appellant argues that the appellant company mainly deals with the production of beverages, sodas, water, nectar beverages, citric drinks, rehydrating drinks, teas and energizing drinks to further sell in the Indian Market. On the other hand, the supplier Ayacucho Preforms Ltd deals only in manufacturing of bottles & caps and it is fair to make the comparable margin with the 14 companies so as to arrive at the correct margin. The arguments of the AR of the appellant company has been considered and found to be acceptable one as the AO compared the margin of 14 companies who deals with the packing material and the appellant company's main business is with the production of beverag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
