TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 884
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dance with the direction of Dispute Resolution Panel's (DRP) dated 29-9-2010. The assessee has disputed the decision of the assessing authority and appeal to the tribunal has been filed on 18-11-2010. 2. At the time of hearing of stay application the Learned counsel for the assessee was asked to clarify whether stay petition had been filed before the CIT. It was submitted by him that the assessee had not filed any stay petition before CIT. The stay petition filed before the AO had been rejected and thereafter the assessee has directly approached the tribunal. Such action it was pointed out was within the legal framework as seeking stay before lower authorities was only directory and was not mandatory. Reliance was place on the decision o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es separately. The TPO however concluded that since the nature of indenting and trading activities were significantly different, the trading and indenting activity were completely different activities and needed to be benchmarked separately. The TPO also concluded that since the trading sales was reported by the assessee at Rs. 42.71 crore only, indenting turnover of the assessee stood at Rs. 734.83 crore which clearly established that the main business of the assessee continued to be that of an indenting company rather than a trading company and the trading activity was only an extension of an indenting activity. Accordingly, the TPO recast the segmental account in respect of trading and indenting separately and after appropriate allocatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese facts, the margin arrived at by the TPO is a suitable CUP margin and therefore there is no justification for interfering with this conclusion. Accordingly, the action of the TPO is upheld. 4. Before us the Learned AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee had been following TNMM method for determining Transfer Pricing adjustments. The same method had been accepted by the authorities below in assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06. Following the same method, the margin earned by the assessee was within the benchmark and at arm's length. The TPO had reworked the working of margin applying TNMM method and he also found the same within the benchmark. The AO however disregarded the method followed in earlier year and applied CUP meth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the TPO had asked the assessee to give details of comparables which were not complied with. It was also submitted that in earlier year also CUP method had been applied in respect of some of the transactions and therefore there were no errors in applying this method in this year. Moreover it was further pointed out that there was no res judicata in the income-tax proceedings and merely because of CUP method had not been followed in respect of some transactions in the earlier year, the same cannot be followed this year. 5. We have perused the records and considered the rival contentions carefully. The assessee has made request for stay of demand for assessment year 2006-07. The demand has mainly arisen because of transfer pricing adjustmen....