AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 1054
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment year 2009-10. The assessee has filed Cross Objections (in short 'the CO') in the appeal of Revenue. 2. The Department has raised solitary ground assailing the findings of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)/assessment order. The same reads as under:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in rejecting TNMM method and thereby consequently deleting the adjustment for the transaction pertaining to export of socks merely accepting the details of the invoices submitted by the assessee to demonstrate that the gross margins earned by the AE is lower than the gross margin earned by AE parties." 3. The assessee in CO has raised following grounds:- "1. On the facts and in the circumsta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the assessee was been able to substantiate that the goods sold by assessee to its AE have been resold by the AE at a price equal or less than the price at which the AE purchased goods from the assessee. The assessee could reconcile 80% of exports during the relevant period. The Assessing Officer passed the impugned order in accordance with the directions of the DRP. Hence, the present appeal by Revenue. 5. Shri Madhur Agrawal appearing on behalf of the assessee at the outset submitted, that the assessee has been consistently following RPM to benchmark its international transactions. The TPO/Assessing Officer has been accepting ALP determined by applying RPM since assessment year 2004-05. Even in subsequent assessment years the TPO/Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m-Trib) 5.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that where a company procures a product from its AE and sells the same to unrelated parties without any further processing i.e. when no value addition is made in the product, RPM is the most appropriate method to determine ALP. To support this argument, the ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. L' Oreal India Pvt. Ltd., 53 taxmann.com 432 (Bom.); 2. Mattel Toys India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 34 taxmann.com 203 (Mum.); 3. DCIT vs. Hazira LNG Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1056/Ahd/2014. 5.2. The third argument raised by the assessee against TP addition is that transfer pricing addition cannot exceed the eventual price charged by the AE f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment Year Method followed in Form no. 3CEB TPO Order status 2004-05 Resale Price Method Accepts the sales price at arm's length 2005-06 Resale Price Method Accepts the sales price at arm's length 2006-07 Resale Price Method Accepts the sales price at arm's length 2007-08 Resale Price Method PB Pg. 205 Accepts the sales price at arm's length 2008-09 Resale Price Method Accepts the sales price at arm's length 2009-10 Resale Price Method Under Dispute 2010-11 Resale Price Method Accepts the sales price at arm's length 2011-12 Resale Price Method Accepts the sales price at arm's length 2012-13 Resale Price Method Accepts the sales price at arm's length 2013-14 Resale Price Method Accepts the sales price at arm's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y material change in facts, the onus is on the Department to show difference in facts warranting a different view. For the sake of ready reference, relevant extract of the judgement is reproduced herein below: "8. We have considered rival submissions. We note that the Revenue has been accepting the TNM method as most proper method for benchmarking the aggregated international transactions with AE's over the period of time. The same has been accepted by the Revenue on examination of the issue. It is found that the TPO had for the other years on same facts has accepted the fact that there was no difference in two segments involved for transfer pricing. Thus, consistently accepting the TNM method as the most appropriate method to determi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en asserted by the respondent. Therefore, it would be for the Revenue to show the difference in facts warranting a different view in this Assessment Year to that taken in the subsequent Assessment Years. We have herein above extracted paragraph 18 of the impugned order of the Tribunal and on its reading we are of the view that the same is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. Thus, no interference is warranted." In the instant case, the Revenue has not brought on record any material fact to show difference in the nature or manner of transactions with AEs. Thus, in the light of facts of the case and the decisions referred above, we find no cogent reason to reject assessee's RPM as the most appropriate method to benchmark ALP....