TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts of the case as emanating from the records are: The assessee is a 100% subsidiary of Schaeffler KG Germany. The assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of roller bearings, linear guides bearings systems and engine components for various automobile companies. During the impugned assessment years the assessee entered into various international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE). For benchmarking the same the assessee adopted Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) in assessment year 2008-09. In respect of international transactions in assessment year 2009-10 the assessee adopted TNMM method as the most appropriate method for some of the transactions and for other transactions, the assessee adopted cost plus method/CUP method....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....huge international transactions with AE in the impugned assessment years, the Assessing Officer referred the same to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for verification of correctness or otherwise of ALP of these transactions. The TPO vide order dated 28-10-2011 rejected the benchmarking of international transactions done by the assessee with its AE and made upward adjustment of Rs. 19,97,51,177/- in assessment year 2008-09. Similarly, for the assessment year 2009- 10 the TPO rejected the benchmarking done by the assessee of international transactions with its AE and made upward adjustment of Rs. 1,71,54,000/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly made additions in the income returned by the assessee in the respective assessment years. Aggrieved ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e relating to the under capacity utilization adjustment. The ld. DR further submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in assessment year 2009-10 has erred in directing the Assessing Officer/TPO to apply the filter of "minimum 75% of manufacturing income" without giving any valid reason for giving such direction. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to take into consideration the fact that without carrying out fresh study of comparables, the revised filter cannot be applied. 4. On the other hand Shri Milin K. Mehta appearing on behalf of the assessee vehemently supported the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in granting adjustment on account of capacity under utilization. The ld. AR submitted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tten submissions before the date of passing of impugned order. The ld. AR submitted that the written submissions were received in his office through E-mail on 08-08-2013 and thereafter the revised submissions were received on 15-08-2013. The hard copy of the written submissions was received in the office of the assessee on 13-08-2013. The same were furnished in the office of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) before the passing of order on 19-08-2013. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to take the same on record. The ld. AR prayed for remitting the matter back to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for considering the detailed written submissions and thereafter pass the order. The ld. AR in support of his conten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arly emerging from the records as to on what basis under capacity utilization adjustment is to be granted to the assessee. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to remit the file back to TPO for deciding the issue afresh by passing speaking order. The TPO shall decide the issue after considering the facts of the case, documents on record and in the light of decisions of Tribunal. The appeal of the Department for the assessment year 2008-09 is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose. ITA Nos. 1797 & 1974/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) 7. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has passed the impugned order for the assessment year 2009-10 without considering the written submissions filed by the assess....