2019 (3) TMI 1401

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the products of the company and assessee are different without appreciating that the assessee had applied transactional net margin method (TNMM) as Most Appropriate Method (MAM) which does not require product similarity but comparability is analysed on the basis of Functions performed, Assets employed and Risks taken (FAR) as per Rule 10B(2) and the assessee itself had taken other companies as comparables which only had similar functions as that of the assessee and did not have the same products as that of the assessee as is evident from the description of final comparables by the assessee as given in Annexure-5 of its Transfer Pricing Study Report? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is justifi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... having showed M/s Schrader Duncan Ltd. as comparable, could not have later on argued to the contrary. On merits also the Tribunal held that M/s Schrader Duncan Ltd. was functionally different from the assessee. In this context the Tribunal noted that the assessee was engaged mostly in manufacturing of measuring instruments which would in turn be used in different industries. They were, however, not pneumatic products. On the other hand M/s Schrader Duncan Ltd. was engaged in the fields of automatic industry and pneumatic industry. The main activity undertaken by M/s Schrader Duncan Ltd. was of manufacturing hydraulic and pneumatic equipments. It was also engaged in trading of such equipments. Such equipments are used as tyre pressure gauge....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee's objections to the selection of said company on the ground of vast difference in the turnover and dissimilarities of the products between the two companies. The Dispute Resolution Panel) ("DRP" for short), however accepted the assessee's objections. The Tribunal in appeal upheld the view of the DRP. The Tribunal noted that the said M/s Areva T & D was engaged in Power Transmission and Distribution Business and dealt in products such as circuit breakers, transmitters switch gears, distribution transformers etc. The company was designing, manufacturing, installing complete range of high and medium voltage products and also secondary distribution equipments for the electricity transmission and distribution networks. On the other ha....