2017 (4) TMI 623

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sing and export of freeze dried shrimps. It is a subsidiary of Higashimaru International Corporation, Japan (HIC Japan). The assessee exports the freeze dried shrimps to its AE i.e., HIC, Japan. The assessee justified the ALP of its international transactions of exports to AE using CUP method in its TP documentation. 2.1 The return of income was filed on 12/09/2011 declaring loss of Rs. 21,91,804/- . Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued and served. Details and explanations were provided during the assessment. Reference was made to TPO for computation of ALP of international transactions. The TPO vide order passed u/s. 92CA(3) on 30/01/2015 and determined the TP adjustment at Rs. 13,22,27,883/-. The TPO rejected the assessee's TP study and proceed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e total income at Rs. 13,00,36,080. The assessee filed objections before the DRP on 15/04/2015. The DRP rejected the assessee's objections and passed the directions on 10/12/2015. The Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order in conformity with the DRP directions on 29/01/2016 assessing the total income at Rs. 13,00,36,080/-. Against this final assessment order, the assessee has filed the present appeal. 3. Ground No. 1.1 to 1.4 deals with the contentions that the (i) assessment order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice (ii) Assessing Officer erred in making a reference to TPO, (iii) Assessing Officer erred in not demonstrating that the motive of the appellant was to shift profits outside India and (iv) the d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oth AFDC and ICF, USA are AEs u/s. 92A in its application for additional evidence and ground under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. As both assessee as well as the revenue agree that AFDC and ICF, USA are associated enterprises, the transaction between them cannot be considered as comparable uncontrolled transaction in terms of Rule 10B of the IT Rules. As per Rule 10A(ab), uncontrolled transaction means a transaction between enterprises other than associated enterprises, whether resident or non-resident. In the present case, it is an agreed fact that both AFDC and ICF, USA are associated enterprises. Thus, transactions between them cannot be considered as the uncontrolled transaction. Consequently, the entire basis of TP adjustment is incorrect ....