Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the matter should be remanded to the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the assessee's claim for idle capacity adjustment in the transfer pricing assessment, in view of additional affidavit evidence and the cryptic nature of the CIT(A)'s earlier finding.
Analysis: The Tribunal examined the affidavit filed by the assessee containing month-wise employee deployment, details of employees engaged on international projects, and assertions of substantial idle capacity during the year under appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reasoning on idle capacity (para 17) was brief and did not deal with the detailed submissions and evidence presented by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that data regarding idle capacity of comparables may be obtainable by the AO/TPO under Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and that industry or comparable-specific capacity information could be placed before the CIT(A) for consideration. Given the incompleteness of the CIT(A)'s consideration and the availability of additional factual material, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to restore the issue for fresh decision rather than decide the substantive transfer pricing and comparability grounds itself.
Conclusion: The Tribunal remands the matter to the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the assessee's claim for idle capacity adjustment and leaves all other contested issues open for reconsideration by the CIT(A).