TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 386
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in I.T.A.Nos.2271/Mds/2012 and 670/Mds/2013 relating to the assessment years 2008-09 and 2007-08 respectively, the appellant/ assessee has come up with these Tax Case Appeals. 2. On 08.07.2014, both these Tax Case Appeals were admitted by this court on the following substantial questions of law: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in setting aside the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer to conduct transfer pricing study within the transfer pricing provisions contained in the Act in Chapter X without specifying any of the statutorily prescribed modes in Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for the determination of arm's length price of the international transactions with the Associated Enterprises for consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same, the assessing officer noticed that the price charged or paid in the international transaction has not been determined, which means the correct method has not been followed by the assessee. Therefore, a proposal for adjustment of Rs.1,00,76,210/- which represents the under invoicing of price, which has been adopted by the assessee to arrive at the Arms Length Price (ALP), has been added back as suggested by the TPO and the same has been communicated to the assessee by the Assessing Officer by letter dated 12.11.2010. In response, the assessee submitted their objections on 24.11.2010. Thereafter, the assessing officer passed the order of assessment on 23.12.2010 adopting the TPO's determination of ALP and determined the taxable t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....back as suggested by the TPO and the same was communicated to the assessee by letter dated 04.11.2011. In response, the assessee, by letter dated 09.11.2011 raised objection to the proposed adjustment. Upon considering the same, the assessing officer concluded that no fresh issue has been raised by the assessee other than the one raised before the TPO, which was already considered and therefore, the Arms Length Price adopted by the TPO at Rs.9,06,35,400/- u/s. 92CA(3) was accepted and added to the income of the assessee for the assessment year in question. Accordingly, the assessing officer passed the draft order of assessment on 28.12.2011. Challenging the same, the appellant filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, Chennai, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....saged the existence of situations/ circumstances for making comparative analysis to arrive at the ALP for determining adjustment in the computation of taxable total income. Adding further, the learned counsel contended that the provisions of Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 prescribed various methods for the determination of Arms Length Price of the international transactions with Associated Enterprises for the purpose of the section 92C of the Act and the resale price method adopted by the appellant was an approved method under the same, whereas the comparable uncontrolled price method or other methods as prescribed in Rule 10B has no application to the facts of the case. However, the Tribunal, without assigning proper reasons and ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 6. Heard Mr. S. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. J. Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 7. The order of the Tribunal is challenged by the appellant / assessee, mainly on the ground that though the resale price method adopted by the appellant in determining its ALP of the international transactions with the Associated Enterprises, was correct and justifiable within the scope of the provisions / regulations governing Transfer Pricing under the Act, the Tribunal, in paragraph no.29 of the order impugned herein, has erred in holding that the resale price method adopted by the assessee in determining its ALP of international transactions with AE, is not applicable, whi....