9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Steel Engineering India Private Limited (NSEI" or "the Company" or "the assessee") is a private limited company and was incorporated on 20.04.2010. The Company is engaged in providing marketing and administrative /support services to Nippon Steel Engineering Co. Limited. Japan ("NSE") and its subsidiary/group companies. The activities include information collation, inputs and services and co-ordination and communication between companies and NSE. (Refer pages 74-78 of Paper-book for detailed functional analysis captured in the TP documentation and page 1241 for intercompany agreement) The Company is also engaged in the business of execution of construction contracts which includes equipment supply and fabrication services to unrelated thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted in the return of income ("ROI") amounting to INR 7,96, 79,550. Transfer Pricing 3. That the Ld. AO/ Learned Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing Officer- 2(3)(1) ("Ld. TPO") have erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by INR 63,18,723 in relation to provision of marketing and administrative support services to its Associated Enterprise ("AE"). In doing so, Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO have grossly erred in: 3.1. not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and modifying the same for determination of arm's length price of the said transactions to hold that the same is not at arm's lengt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in law in denying the deduction claimed by the Appellant on account of Payment of Gratuity and Employer's Contribution to Provident Fund amounting to INR 3,18,440. Other Grounds 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in charging interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act mechanically on the additions made. 5. In ground no.1, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has challenged the assessment order on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. However, at the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee did not press the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out that net provision vis- à-vis payment of gratuity, created during the year was already disallowed by the assessee while computing the taxable income. 9. Similarly, the assessee has made provision of employer contribution towards the payment of provident fund for an amount of Rs. 1,58,863/-. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that contribution to Provident fund has been paid after end of the year but before the due date of filing of Income Tax Return and hence, the AO is not correct in disallowing this amount towards Provident Fund. 10. The Ld. CIT-DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue strongly relied upon the orders of the authorities below 11. We have heard the rival submission and perused th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
