TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ections of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore, issued u/s.144C(5) of the IT Act, 1961, and pertains to the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: The grounds mentioned herein are without prejudice to one another. 1. The orders of the learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "ld, AO"), the Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "ld. TPO") and the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as "ld. DRP") are contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case and in any case, have been made in violation of the principles of equity and natural justice, 2. The Id. TPO, the Id. AO and the Id, DRP have erred in concl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tedly under the CUP method, without first establishing any comparable uncontrolled transaction to arrive at such a conclusion. 8. The Id. TPO, the Id, AO and the ld. DRP have erred in concluding, contrary to the facts of the case, that the appellant did not receive any services from its AEs; that the services received were incidental and in the nature of stewardship or shareholder services; and that the services were duplicative in nature, 9. The ld. TPO and the Id. DRP erred in not considering the information and documents submitted by the appellant. 10. The Appellant craves leave to add, substitute, amend, delete, or otherwise modify any of the grounds of appeal stated hereinabove before commencement of or at th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed TNMM selected by the assessee as most appropriate method and has accepted transactions with its AE are at ALP. However, suggested downward adjustment on account of management fees paid to CTL-UK for Rs. 1,57,23,722/- on the ground that the assessee has not furnished any evidences to prove that, in fact, services have been availed from its AE and also adoption of TNMM as most appropriate method is correct in the given facts and circumstances of the case and hence, out of total expenditure being payment of management fees of Rs. 2,29,84,500/- has allowed, expenses relating to marketing of Rs. 72,60,778/- and balance amount of Rs. 1,57,23,722/- has been suggested as downward adjustment towards payment on account of management fees. 5. Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT in assessee's own case for the AY 2012-13, where under identical circumstances, the Tribunal has in principle accepted the arguments of the assessee that when TNMM is adopted as most appropriate method and further, the transactions of the assessee with its AE are accepted at ALP than segregation of one transaction and applying CUP method to determine the ALP is incorrect. However, set aside the appeal to the file of the TPO on the ground that the assessee has failed to file evidences to prove services received from its AE with a direction to the TPO to re-consider the issue. He, further, submitted that after the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. Further, it is a settled principle of law that CUP method is most appropriate method where this kind of services are availed from its AE. Therefore, the TPO and the DRP has rightly suggested downward adjustment towards management fees paid to its AE and hence, their orders to be upheld. 8. We heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The TPO has suggested downward adjustment of management fees paid to CTL-UK basically on two grounds. The first reason given by the TPO to make TP adjustment is that the assessee has not filed any evidences to prove receipt of services from its AE. The TPO, further, was of the opinion that the services claimed to have received by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the AY 2012-13 has taken a similar view and held that it is not open to the TPO to select a different method for one element of services, when it is accepted the entire transactions of the assessee with its AE are at ALP under TNMM. However, the Tribunal has set aside the issue to the file of the TPO to verify the claim of the assessee with evidences of receipt of services from its AE and directed the TPO to allow the expenditure in case the assessee has filed necessary evidences to prove rendering of services by its AE. In the present case, for the impugned assessment year, we are not in agreement with selection of different method (CUP) by the TPO for bench marking one element of service, when entire services received by the assessee fro....