TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, 'the Act']. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee has pleaded the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: "1. The learned Assessing Officer (AO)/Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) are erroneous in law and on the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. AO/DRP is not legally justified in making an adjustment of interest @12% amounting to Rs. 1,69,22,957/- as arm's length price on receivables from Gulf Batter Co. Ltd. after allowing 60 days credit period and from HBL America Income. & HBL Germany GmBH after allowing 180 days credit period. 3. The Ld. AO/DRP ought to have appreciated that the receivables arise in the course of busin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n'ble Member of the Dispute Resolution Panel". 3. We now advert to the first issue of Arm's Length Price (ALP) adjustment of Rs. 1,69,22,957/- @12% qua receivables from Associated Enterprises (AEs), M/s. Gulf Batter Company Ltd., after allowing 60 days credit period and M/s. HBL America Inc. and HBL Germany, GmBH after allowing 180 days credit period; respectively. 4. Learned authorised representative vehemently submitted during the course of hearing that the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making impugned ALP adjustment @12% interest rate without benchmarking it with the corresponding comparables and also that such receivables do not form an international transactions within the meaning of Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oceed to compute the total income of the assessee under sub-section (4) of section 92C in conformity with the Arm's Length Price as so determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer". Therefore an amount of Rs. 2,08,01,135/- is added to the total income of the assessee u/s. 92CA of IT Act. Addition: Rs. 2,08,01,135/- 5.2 Aggrieved to the above order, the assessee filed an objection before the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore. The Hon'ble DRP vide order in F. No. 85/DRP-BNG/2016-17 dated 31-10-2016 directed the AO as under: "However, with regard to the objection of the assessee regarding the rate of interest of 14.75% charged by the TPO is concerned, we are of the view, that the same can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....69,22,957 On perusal of the submission made by the assessee, the calculation made is found to be correct. Hence, the adjustment u/s. 92CA(3) is restricted to Rs. 1,69,22,957/- adhering the directions of the DRP. Addition of Rs. 1,69,22,957/-" It is sufficiently clear from a perusal of the assessment findings that the impugned ALP adjustment is based on the assessee's details produced in its letter dt. 23-11-2016 containing as well request to adopt the impugned interest rate @12% than 14.75% taken by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). We observe in this backdrop of the facts as to how the assessee could not be taken as an aggrieved party once the impugned adjustment is based on its own computation submitted during t....