TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1759
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case, and in law; 1. The Ld. Assessing Officer („AO') erred in ruling that the transactions pertaining to export of certain finished goods and Marketing Support Services (MSS) provided to group companies have not been conducted at arm‟s length, and thereby making a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 86,62,514 to the income of the appellant. In doing so, the Ld AO/CIT(A) specifically erred in: Making transfer pricing adjustment for export of certain finished goods of Rs. 78,67,104 by: 1.1 disregarding the underlying transactional differences while considering the prices charged (for certain products) to third parties in India as CUPs for determining the arm‟s length nature of similar products exported to the AE.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... involve any investigation into the facts. 5. The assessee is aggrieved by the order passed us 143(3) of the Act in the name of Akzo Nobel Chemicals (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'ANCIL'), which was not in existence on the date of passing of the order. The said concern had merged with Akzo Nobel India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'ANIL') vide order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court dated 11.05.2012 and assessment order passed on 07.04.2014 was claimed to be passed in the case of non existing entity. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that first jurisdictional issue raised by way of additional grounds of appeal, be decided before going into merits of additions made in the hands of assessee. He f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....initio. He has placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Spice Enfotainment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax in Civil Appeal No.285 of 2014 (TS-504-SC-2017) (SC) confirming the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Spice Entertainment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax in ITA Nos.475 of 2011 & 476 of 2011, judgment dated 03.08.2011. He further placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Jitendra Chandralal Navlani & Anr. Vs. Union of India in WP No.1069 of 2016, judgment dated 08.06.2016 and in Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 208 (Bom). He further pointed out that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Spice Entertainment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions detailed in the audit report in Form No.3CEB. The TPO issued notice under section 92CA(2) of the Act. The TPO passed order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on 15.01.2014 in the name of ANCIL. Thereafter, draft assessment order was also passed in the same name on 27.02.2014. The final assessment order was passed on 07.04.2014 in the same name. The CIT(A) has decided the appeal in the name of ANCIL. The grievance of the assessee before us is that despite giving an intimation of amalgamation of ANCIL with ANIL as early as 11.06.2012 to the Assessing Officer and thereafter also to the TPO, who had raised specific query in this regard vide his letter dated 08.08.2013 asking the assessee to file the requisite details with respect to change ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....basis to ANIL and henceforth the income tax liabilities and obligations of the assessee would become the liabilities and obligations of ANIL as per clause 8 of the scheme. Clause 15 of the scheme further provided that amalgamation was dissolution of ANCIL without being would-up. It was also pointed out that PAN of ANIL would be used in relation to the assessee as well and the new PAN was mentioned in the said letter itself. Further, even during the course of assessment proceedings, a letter in reply to various queries raised by the Assessing Officer was filed by the assessee dated 03.02.2014. In the subject itself the assessee mentioned that ANCIL had merged with ANIL w.e.f. 01.04.2011 vide the Hon'ble High Court approved the scheme on 18.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue. Consequently, the assessment has been framed also in respect of the non- existing entity. This defect in issuing a reopening notice to a non-existing company and framing an assessment consequent thereto is a issue which goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to assess the non-existing company. Thus, prima facie, both the impugned notice dated 24th March, 2015 and the Assessment Order dated 28th March, 2016, are without jurisdiction." 10. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) held that the additional ground of appeal taken by the assessee in relation to passing of assessment order in the name of non-existing entity was void ab-initio, was a legal issue to be answered by t....