TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 1157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal, the Revenue has challenge the action of the Disputes Resolution Panel ("DRP") in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,10,30,000 proposed by the A.O./TPO on account of Transfer Pricing ("T.P.") adjustment in respect of the relevant transactions of the assessee with M/s. Mylan Laboratories Ltd., involving the payment of management fees. 3. The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients ("API") and their intermediaries. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 30.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 86,99,95,728 under the normal provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs. 90,33,23,759 under the provisions of section 115JB of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns at NIL, he worked out the T.P. adjustment required to be made in respect of these transactions at Rs. 1,10,30,000. 4. When the T.P. adjustment as worked out by the TPO was proposed to be added by the A.O. to the total income of the assessee in the draft assessment order, the assessee company filed its objection before the Disputes Resolution Panel and following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of IJM (India) Infrastructure Ltd., vs. ACIT (ITA.No.1814/H/2012 dated 12.08.2013) and in the case of M/s. Swarnandhra IJMII Integrated Town Ship P. Ltd., vs. DCIT (ITA.No.2072/H/2011), the DRP directed the A.O. not to make any T.P. adjustment as worked out by the TPO holding that M/s. Mylan Laboratories Ltd., not being an Associated Enter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shift any profits out of India, since both the entities are taxable entities in India and the question of applying the T.P. provisions does not arise. The DRP placed reliance in the case of IJM (India) Infrastructure Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad ITA.No.1814/Hyd/2012 dated 22.08.2013 and in the case of M/s. Swarnandhra IJMII Integrated Township Development P. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 3(3), Hyderabad in ITA.No.2072/ Hyd/2011. Since the TPO does not have any jurisdiction to examine the domestic transactions in the impugned assessment year, the DRP has rightly held that stand of the TPO fails. Since the decision of the DRP is in tune with the pronouncements of the ITAT on similar issues that domestic transactions cannot be examined unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 143(3) for A.Y. 2006-2007, the Ld. CIT set aside the said order on this issue by exercising powers conferred upon him under section 263. Thereafter, as per the directions of the Ld. CIT, a fresh assessment order was passed by the A.O. on 31.01.2013 under section 143(3) read with section 263 wherein the claim of the assessee for depreciation on intangible assets was disallowed by the A.O. by adopting the value of technical knowhow and other rights purchased by it at NIL keeping in view the provisions of Explanation-3 of section 43(1) of the Act. Following this stand taken in the order passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 for A.Y. 2006-2007, the claim of the assessee for depreciation on intangible assets was disallowed by ....