2018 (6) TMI 36

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... A No.132/Bang/2016 for the Assessment Year 2011-12, and IT (TP) A No.86/Bang/2017 for the Assessment Year 2012-13, whereby the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the assessment orders for the above mentioned years. On the dismissal of such appeals, present appeals have been filed before this Court. 2. The facts relevant to the dispute are as follows: The appellant is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing Magnetic based electronic coils, transformers and inductors. It is a subsidiary of M/s. Falco Limited, Hong Kong, and had entered into a technology collaboration agreement dated 29-03-2006 with M/s. Falco Limited which is an associated enterprise (hereinafter referred to as 'AE') for manu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the only issue that arose for consideration was as to whether the TPO was justified in making the arm's length price adjustment in respect of royalty payment made to M/s.Falco Limited in the given facts of the present case. The Tribunal while rejecting the contention that when TNMM was applied at the entity level there was no necessity for benchmarking in respect of royalty transactions observed that "on mere perusal of order of the LD.TPO its is manifest that the TPO had picked up the transaction royalty alone for the purpose of benchmarking." The Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the appeal while rejecting the ground of the appeal raised by the assessee - company as regards assailing of the addition of arm's length price adjustment on account....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No.923/B/2012 dated 25-01-2017 had held that as the royalty paid was already forming part of operating cost, there was no necessity of separately bench marking royalty and the same had been reiterated by the Tribunal in (2014) 33 ITR (T) 700,(2016) 75 taxmann.com 145, which were not referred to by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. 10. The appellant contends that the Tribunal has disposed of the appeals by recording a finding only as regards the issue of royalty and its adjustment by  the TPO under Section 92CA of the Act in respect of the royalty paid to the AE, that there was no occasion to advance arguments as regards the other issues adverted to in their memorandum of appeal filed before the Tribunal as regards grou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to say that as per the discussions made above, it is apparent that the contentions of  the  appellant as regards the issue referred to in substantial question of law raised at question No.(I) was decided without discussing the applicability or otherwise of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericssion Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case M/s. Siemens VTO Automative Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. In view of the same, while answering the substantial question No.(II) in favour of the assessee, it is opined that there is no necessity to record a finding    on the issues raised in subst....