9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. Brief facts of the case as coming out of the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee is a company and engaged in the business of trading of Spices, Oil Seeds, Seeds, Coffee, Tea, Dry Fruits and etc. to its Associated Enterprises (in short 'AE') and third parties. In the impugned assessment year, the assessee has entered into international transaction with its AE and third parties and filed its return of income, observing international transactions with its AE, the Assessing Officer made reference to the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (in short 'TPO') for computing the Arm's Length Price (in short 'ALP') of the international transaction entered into by the assessee with its AE. The Ld. TPO vide its order dated 28.10.202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and ought to be quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in not issuing the final assessment order in conformity with the directions of the Hon'ble DRP. Thus, the learned AO has violated the mandatory provisions of section 144C(10) read with 144C(13). Accordingly, the final assessment order dated October 21, 2024 is bad in law and ought to be quashed. Pertaining to Transfer Pricing Issues: Adjustment Rs. 42,949,937 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (Hon'ble DRP'), the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. TPO" and the Learned AO (collectively referred as "the Revenue") erred in making an adjustment of Rs. 42 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicial pronouncements upholding the application of Internal TNMM over external TNMM. 4. Without prejudice, on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Revenue erred in application of external TNMM by identifying companies which are not comparable to the Appellant in terms of functions, assets, and risk profile. In doing so. 4.1 the Ld. AO/ TPO erred in introducing companies which are failing the export filter applied by the Ld. TPO: a. Mas Enterprises Limited; and b. Sakuma Exports Limited 4.2 rejecting functionally comparable companies without citing any valid reasons for the same 5. On facts and in law, the Revenue erred in passing a cryptic order, not addressing various contentions raised by the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersy has argued that the approach of the TPO in rejecting the segmental analysis of the assessee vis-a-vis international transactions on the ground that the segmental results were not audited is of no relevance. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further argued that the profit margin declared by the assessee with AE is -2.68% and with non-AE is -1.99%. He further, pointed out that the TPO, after conducting his own TP study has arrived to a median of 1.39%, which mean, is in the tolerance limit of 1% and hence no adjustment is required to be made in this case. Further, Mr Rohit Tewari, counsel for the assessee argued that the assessee has duly filed the certificate of the auditors, certifying that the segmental results of the assessee before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
