TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see's appeals pertaining to the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. However, the present appeal pertaining to the assessment year 2004-05 is being disposed of separately by this order. 3. Ground Nos. 1 to 5.8 revolve around the addition/adjustment of Rs. 3,28,65,304 to arm's length price determined by the assessee. 4. In this case, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 3,28,65,304 after rectifying his order under section 154 on account of adjustment to the arm's length price determined by the assessee on the basis of Transfer Pricing Officer's report. The assessee furnished transfer pricing study taking 12 comparables. The arithmetic mean of 12 comparables was determined by the assessee at 4.46 per cent. The operating profit of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mited; l NIS Sparta Limited; and l Powerplant Performance Improvement Limited. However their annual reports were not available in the public domain. Therefore, TPO as well as Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] had ignored to analyse these comparable companies, namely : l Esquire Engineers & Consultants Limited; l NIS Sparta Limited; and l Powerplant Performance Improvement Limited. Are now available in the public domain and therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the same may now be considered for working out the arithmetic mean margin of the comparable companies.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctions. The learned counsel for the assessee further pointed out that these comparables were included in the comparables taken by the assessee in the transfer pricing study submitted by the assessee to the Assessing Officer/TPO. 7. The learned DR on the other hand, submitted that since the assessee failed to furnish the financial data of the aforesaid 3 comparable companies before the Assessing Officer/TPO, the TPO was very must justified in excluding these 3 companies from comparables. He further submitted that the assessee has not given any sufficient reason for not submitting the same before the lower authorities. He, therefore, contended that the assessee's application for admission of additional evidences be rejected. 8. We have hear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and correct perspective after considering proper comparables. In this connection, we may rely upon the decision of coordinate Bench of the Tribunal i.e., ITAT Delhi Bench 'F' in the case of UOP LLC v. Addl. DIT [2007] 108 ITD 186 where the revenue's application under Rule 29 to allow additional evidences, which came into the possession of the revenue after filing of the appeal by the assessee, was allowed after considering the scope and object of Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963. In that case, the revenue filed an application under Rule 29 seeking admission of additional evidence in connection with the main issue whether the assessee had PE in India and though the additional evidences did came into the possession of the revenue after filing of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n for the Assessing Officer/TPO's decision as per law. The Assessing Officer/TPO shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. Further, the assessee has taken a ground that while determining the arm's length price, working capital adjustment and risk adjustment criteria may also be taken into account. In this connection, the assessee has submitted before us working capital adjustment and risk adjustment. Since the main issue regarding determination of arm's length price has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh adjudication, these issues taken by the assessee before us are also to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer/TPO for their decision after considering the assessee's co....