TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal partially allowed, directing reassessment of asset valuation & adjustment under Capital Gains</h1> <h3>Saxo India Private Ltd. Versus DC/ACIT-TP, 3 (1) (2), Delhi</h3> Saxo India Private Ltd. Versus DC/ACIT-TP, 3 (1) (2), Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:1. Upward adjustment in determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international transaction pertaining to consideration received for the transfer of business undertaking.2. Incorrect computation of total tax demand under section 156 of the Act.3. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Upward Adjustment in Determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP)The primary issue revolves around the upward adjustment of INR 15,55,31,595 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in determining the ALP of the international transaction related to the transfer of business undertaking to the Associated Enterprise (AE). The assessee argued that the AO and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in rejecting the analysis undertaken by the assessee to determine the ALP as documented in the valuation report. The assessee contended that certain assets and liabilities were retained during the transfer, and the AO failed to recognize this fact. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) observed discrepancies in the valuation methods used by the assessee and questioned the lower sale price compared to the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) valuation. The DRP upheld the AO's adjustment, disregarding the assessee's additional evidence, including the 'Addendum to Business Agreement' and other supporting documents. The Tribunal found that the AO and DRP did not properly consider the Addendum and other evidences, which clearly showed that only part of the assets and liabilities were transferred. The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-evaluate the value of the transferred assets and exclude the retained assets for determining the ALP.Issue 2: Incorrect Computation of Total Tax DemandThe assessee argued that the AO incorrectly computed the final tax demand by adding the transfer pricing adjustment to the 'Income from Business or Profession' instead of 'Income from Capital Gains.' The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that the consideration received from the transfer of assets should be computed under the head 'Income from Capital Gains.' The AO was directed to reassess the adjustment under the correct head.Issue 3: Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 270AThe assessee challenged the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A for the transfer pricing adjustment made in the final assessment order. The Tribunal deemed this ground as premature and dismissed it accordingly.Conclusion:The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the TPO to reconsider the valuation of transferred assets by taking into account the Addendum and other evidences. The AO was instructed to compute the adjustment under 'Income from Capital Gains' rather than 'Income from Business or Profession.' The issue of penalty proceedings was dismissed as premature.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
