TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... alia that :- "1. On the (acts and in law the learned Assessing Officer (ld. AO), learned Transfer Pricing Officer (ld. TPO) erred and hon'ble DRP erred in confirming the addition of Income by Rs. 4,42,08,235 as adjustment at arm's length price of international transactions. 2.1 On the facts and in law, the ld. AO, ld. TPO and hon'ble DRP erred in determining the arm's length price of royalty payments to its A.E. at NIL 2.2 On the facts and in law, the Id. AO, ld. TPO and hon'ble DRP erred in holding that the Assessee could not justify the payment of royalty to its AE. 2.3 On the facts and in law, the ld. AO, ld. TPO and hon'ble DRP erred in treating Rs. 1,20,70,435 as adjustments u/s 92A on account of payment of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 4,42,08,235 on the basis of arm's length price of international transaction, which is allowable as per Proviso to section 92C (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. On the facts and in law, the ld. AO erred in not allowing MAT credit of Rs. 56,28,145 u/s 115JAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. On the facts and in law, the ld. AO erred in excess interest charged u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act. 9. On the facts and in law, the ld. AO, ld. AO erred in excess interest of Rs. 3,96,342 charged u/s 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is chargeable on the returned income." 2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are : assessee group comprises Magotteaux Group SA founded in 1920 in Liege by Lucien Magotteaux and is market leader in both gri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned order passed by AO/TPO/DRP by way of present appeal. 5. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. At the very outset, ld. AR for the assessee company fairly conceded that he does not want to press grounds no.5 & 7 and consequently, grounds no.5 & 7 are dismissed having not been pressed by the assessee company. GROUND NO.1 7. Ground no.1 is general in nature which would be covered and discussed under grounds no.2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 4. GROUNDS NO.2.1, 2.2 & 2.3 8. Undisputedly, assessee company has entered into international transactio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Rs. 8,00,216/- as prior period expenses. Ld. AR further contended that in the light of the judgment cited as CIT vs. EKL Appliances - (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Cushman & Wakefield India (P) Ltd. - 367 ITR 730 (Delhi), the matter is required to be remanded back to the TPO for verifying the facts. 11. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in judgment cited as CIT vs. EKL Appliances (supra) while dealing with the identical issues returned the following findings :- "Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer pricing - Computation of arm's length price - Assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 - Whether it is not necessary for assessee to show that any legitimate expenditure incurred by him was incurred out of necessity; a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue in assessee's own case qua AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 (TPO vide order dated 30.01.2014 qua AY 2010-11 held that on the basis of functional and economic analysis of assessee company and that of comparables, no adverse inference is drawn in respect of the international transaction undertaken by the assessee during FY 2009-10), we are of the considered view that the matter is required to be remanded to the TPO to decide afresh on furnishing the facts by the assessee after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Consequently, grounds no.2.1, 2.2 & 2.3 are determined in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes. GROUNDS NO.3.1, 3.2, 3.3 & 4 13. Ld. TPO/DRP have made adjustment in respect of intercorporate services to t....