TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing grounds survived after settlement under the Mutual Agreement Procedure and whether those grounds were liable to be dismissed as infructuous; (ii) Whether the addition made under section 145A on account of unutilized CENVAT credit in closing stock was sustainable or required recomputation.
Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing grounds survived after settlement under the Mutual Agreement Procedure and whether those grounds were liable to be dismissed as infructuous.
Analysis: The cost contribution arrangement for the relevant assessment year had been resolved under the Mutual Agreement Procedure under Article 27 of the India-USA Tax Treaty, and the Assessing Officer had already given effect to the settlement by revising the transfer pricing adjustment. Since the disputed adjustment had attained finality through the competent authorities, the connected grounds in both appeals no longer required adjudication on merits.
Conclusion: The transfer pricing grounds in the revenue appeal and the corresponding grounds in the assessee's appeal were dismissed as infructuous.
Issue (ii): Whether the addition made under section 145A on account of unutilized CENVAT credit in closing stock was sustainable or required recomputation.
Analysis: The assessee's grievance concerned the computation of inventory and profit under section 145A and the effect of adopting an inclusive method of accounting. The record showed that in earlier years the Tribunal had remitted the matter for computation in accordance with its directions for preceding assessment years, and the facts for the present year were stated to be pari materia. Following that approach, the computation required to be redone on the same lines.
Conclusion: The section 145A issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation in accordance with the Tribunal's earlier directions and was allowed for statistical purposes.
Final Conclusion: The revenue's appeal failed, while the assessee obtained relief on the section 145A issue by way of remand for recomputation, leaving the dispute only partly resolved in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a transfer pricing dispute has been conclusively settled under the Mutual Agreement Procedure and effect has been given to that settlement, the related grounds become infructuous; and where an inventory adjustment under section 145A has to follow the Tribunal's earlier computation method, the matter may be remanded for fresh working on the same basis.
TaxTMI 
