TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1881
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 24,54,556, on account of transfer pricing adjustment. 3. Brief facts are, the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing ceramite mortar and trading in micro silica, foundry alloy. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year under dispute, the assessee had entered into a number of international transactions with its overseas AEs. However, in the present appeal, we are concerned with the international transaction relating to availing of services from the AEs for which an amount of Rs. 24,54,556, was paid by the assessee to the AE. In the transfer pricing study report, the assessee has benchmarked the aforesaid transactions by selecting Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method as the most appropriate method....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fer Pricing Officer. 5. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, before the Transfer Pricing Officer as well as learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee has not only filed detailed submissions but furnished all documentary evidences to demonstrate the mechanism of cost allocation as well as the services rendered to the customers. In this regard he drew our attention to the submissions made before learned Commissioner (Appeals), as reproduced in the appeal order. He also drew our attention to the submissions made before the Transfer Pricing Officer and the documentary evidences filed before him. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, the modalities of cost allocation were also furnished before the Transfer Pricing Offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowing decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court:- i) CIT v/s Kodak India Pvt. Ltd., ITA no.15/2014, dated 11.07.2016; ii) CIT v/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd., ITA no.1291/2014, dated 03.04.2017; iii) CIT v/s Merck Ltd., ITA no.272/2014, dated 08.08.2016; and iv) CIT v/s Lever India Exports Ltd., [2017] 78 taxmann.com 88. 6. Further, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, since in the preceding and subsequent assessment years the Department has accepted the benchmarking done by the assessee for payment made to the AE for similar services availed, applying the rule of consistency no disallowance can be made in the impugned assessment year. In support, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under the statute. It is also relevant to observe, the agreement under which the assessee is making payment for availing such services has continued from the preceding assessment years and is also continuing in the subsequent assessment years. It is worth mentioning, in the subsequent assessment years i.e., A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Transfer Pricing Officer has accepted similar benchmarking of arm's length price of the services availed by the assessee from the AE on account of Lotus Note. Therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kargill Food India Ltd. (supra), even applying the rule of consistency the benchmarking done by the assessee under CUP method is to be accepted. 9. Even otherwise also, if t....