2014 (4) TMI 563

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../to Rs.7,536/overlooking the facts that the assessee had earned exempt income, had made investment of Rs.2.01 crores and had claimed administrative and other expenses of Rs.72.13 crores ? B. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the addition of Rs.58,48,771/made u/s.92CA(3) of the Act ? C. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in considering the quotation of Malaysian oil price from 'Oil World' which is an independent agency of Germany engaged in providing forecasting services for the purpose of deciding the Arms Length Price (ALP) of Malaysian palm oil ? D. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in overlooking the fact that MPOB is a Govt. Nodal agency for Malaysia palm oil and hence the quo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tations of Oil World did not have any statutory authority. The second objection was that Oil World was an independent organisation registered in Germany and had nothing to do with the oil prices prevailing in Malaysia. He relied on Rule 10D)(3)(a) of the Income-tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), to place heavy reliance on the pricelist of the MPOB. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The Commissioner of Incometax (CIT) (Appeals) discarded both the objections of the TPO. Referring to section 92C of the Incometax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rule 10(D)(3) of the Rules, he found that the quotations of the Oil World could not have been discarded. He observed as under : &nb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on into continuous plant which is also an important factor for considering the ALP and due weightage is required to be given while comparing the rates given by MPOB. Even the average price paid by the appellant is lower than average price on the basis of rates of MPOB. Therefore, in view of these facts, circumstances and the legal position the AO/TPO were not justified in making the adjustment to the purchase price and, accordingly, the addition on account of adjustment of the price is hereby deleted. Accordingly, this ground is decided in favour of the appellant." 5. The matter was carried in appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue. The Tribunal confirmed the view of the CIT (Appeals) and, hence, this appeal. 6. Having heard the le....