TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1316
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO vide order dated 13.10.2016 made an adjustment of Rs. 10,28,08,892/-. Subsequently draft assessment order was passed on 24.11.2016 thereby computing the income at Rs. 4,10,07,860/-. The assessee filed objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide direction dated 25.08.2017 directed the TPO to make verification on certain issues. The TPO vide order giving effect to the DRP passed order dated 18.09.2017 thereby re-computing the ALP adjustment under Section 92CA of the Act. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order dated 28.09.2017 thereby making ALP adjustment / addition of Rs. 4,74,55,478/-. 2. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equirement and act as a license between all related Govt. and regularity agencies. The ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Li & Fung India Pvt. Ltd. [TS 352-ITAT-2018 (Del) TP] (Assessment Year 2013-14) and also relied upon Bergen Engines Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). The ld. DR submitted that this comparable case has a similar function and is even the merely being a Govt. company and is within the margin i.e. 38.19%. The ld. DR further submitted that the TPO has rightly selected this comparable company in the final list. (c) Killik Agencies and Marketing Ltd. : The TPO included this comparable company as it is engaged in support services, Revenue Services and Commission Income) for the reason that it is engaged i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AR submitted that "ARMS & Misc. Operation" segment has been considered comparable to HRID. The ld. AR further submitted that this comparable company continues to operate in functional profile which has been accepted by the CIT (Appeals) and DRP in earlier years. The company was considered as comparable by CIT (Appeals) for assessment year 2005-06 which was further upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in this comparable company's case. Also company has been accepted by DRP in assessment years 2007-08, 2010-11 and 2011-12 as the profile of the company remains same vis-à-vis past year. The ld. AR further submitted that comparable margins of this comparable company is 11.14%. The ld. DR relied upon the order of the TPO and DRP. (c) Cyber....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unctional profile of those comparables was not in consonance with the assessee company's profile. As regards the working capital adjustment is concerned, the ld. DR submitted that if the re-computation is required, then it is necessary to remand back the issue to the file of the TPO / Assessing Officer. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the comparables which were argued by the assessee to be excluded as a functionally dissimilar cannot be simplicitory included. It can be seen from annual report and the documents provided by the assessee before us that the functional profile was not properly verified by TPO / Assessing Officer. Thus, it will be appropria....