TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;), Bangalore issued u/s 144C (5) r.w.s 144C(8) of the Act. 2.Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under:- 2.1 The assessee, a company engaged in the business of engineering and construction work in India under a contract awarded by the National Highways Authority of India ('NHA'), is a wholly owned subsidiary of UEM (Mauritius) Co. Ltd., which in turn is a subsidiary of United Engineers (Malaysia) Berhad. For asst. year 2008-09, the assessee filed its return of income on 30/9/2008 declaring loss of 1,346/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee as per its report in Form No.3CEB had entered into international transactions and, therefore, the Assessing Officer ('AO') made a reference to the Transfer P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same project, as in the earlier years and later year, the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for asst. year 2009-10 in No.347/Bang/2014 dated 5/5/2017, which followed the earlier decision of another co-ordinate bench in IT(TP)A No. 1104/Bang/2011 for asst. year 2007-08 and IT(TP)A Nos.284 to 286/Bang/2012 for asst. years 2004-05 to 2006-07 all dated 30/8/2013. 3.3 Per contra, the Id DR for Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 3.4. 1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record, including the judicial pronouncements cited. On an appreciation of the facts on record it is seen that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to 2007-08 (Supra), at para 4 its order, has decided the issue in dispute in favour of the assessee and against Revenue, holding as under:- 4.We .have heard the learned Departmental Representative as well as learned Authorised Representative and considered the relevant material on record. The assessee is a subsidiary of United Engineers Mauritius Co. Ltd. which in turn a subsidiary of United Engineers Malaysia (UEM), Berhad. In order to participate in the international bidding for the development, maintenance and management of National Highways under National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), UEM had formed a joint venture with S R Projects Limited and along with the joint venture partner has secured three highway projects in India for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it erred in holding that the remedy is to suitably substitute the ALP determined in the hands of assessee also in the hands of the AE. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee, the DRP can only give directions as regards the determination of ALP in the hands of the assessee before it. It cannot give directions to consider the issue in the hands of an assessee whose case is not before it. It is for the relevant TPO/AO to take action in accordance with law in the light of facts and circumstances of the case before them applyinq their mind independently and not on the directions of DRP or any other authority another case. Therefore, the reievant ground of appeal on this issue is anowed. 14. As regards the margin of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ores, (iv)Counter claim of the assessee with UEM for an amount of Rs.186.554. However, we find that neither the AO/TPO nor the CIT(A)/DRP has considered the assessee's contention or the explanation for the loss incurred by the assessee for the relevant assessment year. u/s 92CA of the Act, the TPO has to determine the ALP of the transaction and while doing so, the TPO has to examine the reasons for the margin of the asseesee being less than the comparable companies. The TPO is required to determine whether the price fixed by the assessee with its AE is at arm's length taking into consideration the margin t led by life 51müar comparable companies in similar circumstances. For determining the same, the TPO is required to ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other party to the transaction i.e. the assessee herein, In view of the same we do not see any purpose being by remanding the issue to the lower authorities. 15. In the result, the assessee's appeals are allowed. Since the issue arising from the identical facts and circumstances and therefore it is covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case. Hence following the earlier order of this Tribunal, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the CIT (Appeals). 3.4.3 Since the issue in dispute is arising from identical facts and circumstances as in the earlier/later years, it is, therefore, covered by the deicison of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the as....