TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 779
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he balance tax (including interest) demand payable by the Appellant: 4. The learned AO has erred in laws and in facts, by not appreciating the fact that clause (i) of section 92BA was omitted by the Finance Act, 2017. Therefore, the reference made to the learned Transfer Pricing Office ("TPO") under section 92CA needs to be considered as invalid and bad in law and accordingly, the consequential order passed by the learned TPO should not be sustained; 5. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned AO/Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") have erred in laws and in facts, by not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Income-Tax-Act, 1961 ("the Act") read with the Income-Tax Rules. 1962 ("the Rules")and conducting a fresh economic analysis for the determination of the arm's length price ("ALP") Accordingly the learned TPO has proposed transfer pricing adjustment amounting to INR2,71,44,382; 6. The Learned AO/TPO have erred in laws and facts by rejecting the following 3 companies considered as comparable in the transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant, on the basis of non-availability of financial data on p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... called for economic details of international transaction entered into by assessee with its associated enterprises. Assessee filed details in Form 3 CEB according to which following international transaction were entered into by assessee with associated enterprises: As per TP study, assesee entered into following international transaction with its associated enterprise during year under consideration: International Transactions as per 3CEB Particulars Receivables Payables/Paid Method Management Fees 3458615 OTHER Total 3458615 As per TP study, assesee entered into following Specified domestic transaction transaction with its associated enterprise during year under consideration: Specified Domestic Transactions as per 3CEB Particulars Receivables Payables/Paid Method Purchase of footwear, apparels and accessories 582379454 TNMM Director's Remuneration 1200000 TNMM Corporate Support fees 7888054 TNMM Total 591467508 Only disputed segment is regarding Purchase of Footware apparel and accessories from PUMA sports under specified domestic transaction. 2.1. Ld.TPO observed that, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 13. The learned DRP/TPO has erred in law and facts in applying filter of 'companies having negative PBIT and negative net worth' for rejection of companies. 14. Without prejudice to the above ground, the learned DRP/TPO, while rejecting pantaloon fashion & Retail Ltd and PIL industries Ltd, has erred in considering only the data of the current year instead of also considering the data for preceding two years. 15. The earned TPO and DRP have erred in law and in facts in making transfer pricing adjustment the fact that the transaction is tax neutral and therefore the adjustment is bad in law. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above ground of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute the aforesaid ground of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide on the appeal in accordance with the law. 5.1. At the outset, Ld.AR submitted that Ground No. 15 is not pressed. He submitted that Grounds 13-14 raised in application for admission of additional grounds could not be raised inadvertently. He submitted that these grounds emanates from order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration these comparables have incurred losses and therefore cannot be considered as good comparable is. 6.3. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. It is observed that merely because these comparables have earned losses during the year under consideration they have been excluded authorities below. Undisputedly, FAR analysis is accepted. Only reason for exclusion is that these companies earned losses during the year. To this we refer to rule 10 B (4) which provides that; RULE 10 B(4): "The data to be used in analysing the comparability of an uncontrolled transaction with an international transaction shall be the data relating to the financial year [(thereafter in this rule and in rule 10 CAA referred to as the 'current year')] in which the international transaction has been entered into" Proviso to this rule further provides that: "data relating to a period not being more than 2 years prior to[the current year] may also be considered if such data reveals facts which could have an influence on determination of transfer prices in relation to the transactions being compared". 6.4. On account joint reading of the provision wit....