TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 2286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- ITA No. 6144/DEL/2014 "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O at Rs. 6,00,00,000/- on account of deemed dividend and Rs. 8,74,517/- as interest thereon by holding that the assessee was not a shareholder of the payer company when the A.O had clearly established that the payer company was de facto beneficial shareholder of the assessee." ITA No. 6007/DEL/2014 "1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - XX, Delhi ['CIT (Appeals)'] erred in disregarding the Transfer Pricing (TP) documentation and thereby erred in not appreciating economic analysis conducted b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contract R&D services and thereby performing his own comparability analysis in making adjustment to the transfer price of the Appellant. 2.4. considering only one comparable company namely TCG Lifesciences Limited to benchmark the international transaction pertaining to contract R&D segment thereby expecting the Appellant to perform at par with TCG Lifesciences Limited and also disregarding the statistical principle which states that "other things being equal, as the sample size increases, the results tend to be more reliable and accurate." 2.5 ignoring the limited risk nature of the contract R&D services provided by the Appellant and in not providing an appropriate adjustment towards the risk differential. 2.6. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l presence and global profit. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the charging of interest under section 234B of the Act. 5. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and / or alter, amend, rescind or modify the grounds taken hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of this appeal." 3. Akzo Nobel Car Refinishes India Private Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Akzo Nobel Coatings International BV, Netherlands. The company was incorporated on December 05, 1997. The assessee is engaged in the business of distribution of car refinish paints and ancillaries in India and providing research and development services to its global affiliates as contract service provider being remunerated on the basis of a ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Assessing Officer passed assessment order on a non existing entity. Thus, the Revenue's appeal is on non existing entity and is not maintainable. The Ld. DR could not controvert this position. 6. We have heard both the parties in respect of the Revenue's appeal. It is pertinent to note that the Revenue was very well informed by the assessee about the non existence of the entity named M/s. Akzo Noble Car Refinishes India Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the appeal is not maintainable in respect of the nonexisting entity. Therefore, Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 7. In result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ita 8. As regards to the Assessee's appeal, the Ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2007-08 being ITA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by Akzo Group. Akzo India Provides contract R & D services only to the Akzo Group and is compensating on the cost plus pre-determine basis and thus operating in an owner risk insulated atmosphere. As a cost plus method is considered as compensation as the risk insulated service provider, which is paid irrespective of the success or failure of the services rendered. The Ld. AR submitted that TCG Lifesciences Ltd, Transgene Biotek Ltd. are functionally different from the assessee company. As TCG Lifesciences Ltd. is engaged in clinical research project development and is in Pharmaceutical Industry. While Transgene Bioteck Ltd. is engaged and manufacturing diagnostic products and allied services and again in Pharmaceutical Industry. Both thes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of TPO/A.O as well as CIT(A). Working capital levels were significantly different from the comparables which were not taken into account by the TPO as well as CIT(A). The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the ITAT in the assessee's own case where in Para 29 detail discussion was given. 17. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the TPO and the CIT(A). 18. We have heard both the parties and perused the order of the ITAT in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2005-06. In this particular year also, the working capital adjustment was not considered by TPO, therefore, ITAT directed the TPO to do the needful by taking into account of the relevant factors which was ignored on the earlier occasions. However, it would have to be decided ....