TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assembly of steering columns to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) like Hyundai Motor India Ltd. The assessee in the course of its business has international transactions on account of import of machinery, raw-materials, consumable components and finished goods besides payment of royalty, management fee, reimbursement of expenses etc. The assessee filed its return of income for the AY under consideration on 30-09-2008 declaring a loss of Rs. 16,03,67,744/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 12-08-2009. Since the assessee had certain international transactions with Associated Enterprise [AE], reference was made to Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] to determine ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he international transactions, made downward adjustment of Rs. 7,59,39,334/- vide order dated 28-10-2011. Aggrieved against the order of the TPO, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP]. The DRP sought detailed report from the TPO on the objections filed by the assessee. The TPO submitted his report dated 01-06-2012 to DRP. However, in the report, the TPO enhanced the adjustment from Rs. 7,59,39,334/- to Rs. 11,39,39,334/-. The reason for modifying the adjustment as stated by TPO was that the actual cost was wrongly taken as Rs. 1,11,50,23,385/- instead of Rs. 1,15,30,23,385/-. The DRP rejected all the objections raised by the assessee and confirmed the findings of TPO. On the basis of the directions of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at if the International Transactions are tested on individual basis considering Mando Korea as the tested party, the same would meet the Arm's Lenth Price (ALP). 5. The Ld.AO/Ld.DRP erred in law and in facts in rejecting assessee's claim of capacity utilization adjustment. 6. The Ld.AO/Ld.DRP erred in law and in facts by computing the adjustment on an overall basis including uncontrolled transactions". 4. Shri Prasun Kumar Maiti, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the period relevant to the AY under consideration was the first year of production. The assessee had utilized only 15% of its production capacity. Since the production capacity of the assessee was under-u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count, the assessee has shown total profit on foreign exchange fluctuation as Rs. 5,38,99,923/- which is inclusive of gain relating to fixed assets amounting to Rs. 3,14,10,819/-. However, the said amount was not claimed as deduction while making the computation as a result, the loss of the year was lesser to that extent. The mistake was pointed out to the Assessing Officer at the time of making draft assessment order. The assessee could not rectify the mistake by filing revised return, as the time period for filing revised return had already elapsed by then. 5. On the other hand, Shri Anirudh Rai, appearing on behalf of the Revenue vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and the findings of the TPO/DRP. The ld.DR submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of foreign exchange gain while arriving at the taxable income. The assessee did not file revised return, as by the time assessee realized mistake the time period for filing the revised return had already elapsed. The assessee filed letter dated 15-12-2011 during assessment proceedings to claim the aforesaid deduction. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetze India Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323. 8. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the deduction is not claimed in original, the Assessing Officer cannot entertain claim for deduction otherwise than in a revised return. Further, th....