TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1379
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.10 Crores made u/s.92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') relating to international transactions of the assessee with its Associated Enterprises [AE]. 2. The facts as emanating from the documents on record are, the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s. Alden Group Ltd., United Kingdom. The assessee is providing pre-press related activities of data capture, on screen editing, structure and coding on screen drawing and relabeling, data conversion and processing for web applications and other related facilities. Apart from above, the assessee is also engaged in editing of scientific, technical and medical journals and books for its AE as well as un-related parties. The assessee is also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee has come in second appeal before the Tribunal assailing the findings of CIT(Appeals). The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal are as under: "1. The order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI has erred in adding a sum of ' 2,10,00,000/- being the upward adjustment made under section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 relating to the international transactions which the assessee had with its Associated Enterprise. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI erred in not considering the cost plus method adopted by the appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fact that the international transaction with the associate enterprise was only by a division of the company and consequently erred in determining the Arm's Length Price considering the total profits of the company. 8. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI erred in determining the Arm's Length Price based on the profit of the whole year without considering the fact that the Associated Enterprise was a holding company only for a part of the year. 9. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI failed to appreciate the merits of the appellant's submissions and erroneously held that 'the Transfer Pricing Officer has clearly made out the list of cases taken up and filtered by her for arriving at the Arm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y considered to determine ALP u/s.92CA of the Act and the nature of business of the assessee is entirely different from the business of the comparables taken into consideration by the TPO. The ld. Counsel during the course of making submissions referred to page 4 of the paper book wherein the list of companies initially considered by the TPO is given. A close reading of the parameters of the comparables show operating profit to operating cost ratio of the comparables range from 1.87% to 58.36%. Thus, average arithmetic mean of the comparables as drawn by the TPO comes to 24.10%. On the objection raised by the assessee, the TPO re-calculated the arithmetic mean of comparables to 16.70%. While doing so, the TPO has not given the details of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o make an effective reply to the notice. 12. Going by the complexities thus involved in the second respondent arriving at his decision on the assessee's transaction as not arms length, on the limited question of compliance of the provisions of the Act as well as the basic principles of natural justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits, I feel that it is a fit case wherein this Court should set aside the order of the second respondent and consequently that of the Dispute Resolution Board so as to enable the petitioner to have the particulars furnished as sought for by the petitioner in its reply dated 28.9.2010 and 20.10.2010 before the second respondent so that the opportunity of filing on objection remains a real and eff....