TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1759
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) 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. Making transfer pricing adjustment for Marketing Support Services (MSS) of Rs. 7,95,410 by: 1.2 disregarding the few comparable companies while determining the arm‟s length nature of Management Support Services rendered by the Appellant. 3. The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal which read as under:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 1(1), Pune ("the AO") erred in passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") dated April 07, 2014 in the name of Akzo Nobel Chemicals (India) Limited which was not in existence on the date of passing the order. 2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that Akzo Nobel Chemicals (India) Limited had merged with Akzo ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....malgamation of the assessee company. He further referred to the communication dated 03.02.2014 which was filed before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings wherein also, it was clearly in the subject itself mentioned that the company has merged with ANIL w.e.f. 01.04.2011. However, the TPO passed order on 15.01.2014, the Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order on 27.02.2014 and final order on 07.04.2014, all in the name of ANCIL. The assessee has challenged the said orders being passed on non existing entity being void ab-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 fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the assessee filed letter dated 13.09.2013 along with copy of approval of scheme of amalgamation by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The said communication is placed at pages 261 to 297 of Paper Book-1. The copy of first intimation dated 11.06.2012 which was filed in the office of the Assessing Officer on 13.06.2012 is placed at pages 1 and 2 of the Paper Book-2. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has pointed out that the said letter is not available on record. However, the copy of letter filed by the assessee bears the acknowledgement receipt of the DCIT, Circle 1(1), Pune dated 13.06.2012 i.e. the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, even in all the communications, the assessee has mentioned the said fact of its merger. The assessee in this regard has pointed out that the proceedings for amalgamation had started on 29.08.2011 and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court passed the order on 11.05.2012. The said intimation was filed before the Registrar of Companies on 18.05.2012. The scheme had become effective from the said date but the appointed date was 01.04.2011. The first intimation to the Assessing Officer was filed on 13.06.2012 i.e. immediately after communication was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecurity Systems Pvt. Ltd., which stands dissolved, having been struck off the Rolls of the Registrar of Companies much before its 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 the Appellate Authority and that it cannot be remanded back to the Assessing Officer. 11. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Spice Entertainment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax (supra) had also decided the issue of whether the assessment made in the name of non-existing entity was procedural irregularity of the....