2021 (2) TMI 1326

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. Ground Nos.8 to 11 are relating to various facets of Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.4,99,37,624. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follow: The assessee is a subsidiary of Kennametal Inc. USA. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing of hard metal products, special purpose machines and metal forming tools. For the assessment year 2014-2015, the return of income was filed on 27.11.2014 admitting total income of Rs.15,98,22,400. The assessment was taken up for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T.Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) since the assessee had international transactions exceeding Rs.15 crore for the relevant assessment year ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ms Pvt. Ltd. (e)Mitsubishi Heavy Industries India Precision Tools Ltd (Mitsubishi) (f) Birla Precision Technologies Limited (g)Federal-Mogul Anand Bearings India Limited. 5. The learned AR submitted that identical issue of transfer pricing adjustment was considered by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2013-2014 in IT(TP)A No.2880/Bang/2017 (order dated 27.04.2020). It was stated that in assessee's own case for assessment year 2013-2014, the Tribunal had restored the entire transfer pricing adjustment to the files of the AO/TPO for de novo consideration. It was contended that similar view may be taken for the relevant assessment year since the transfer pricing adjustment undertaken by the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of four comparable companies, the Ld DRP has observed as under:- "7.5 On perusal of the order of the TPO, it is found that above 4 comparables qualified all filters adopted by the TPO and are functionally comparable. Panel finds that objections and submissions of assessee made before TPO have been considered and countered by the TPO correctly. Therefore assessee's objection against adoption of Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd., Micromatic Manufacturing Systems P Ltd; Federal Mogul Anand Bearings India Ltd; Birla Precision Technologies Ltd are not accepted." 11. With regard to the plea of the assessee for inclusion of two comparable companies, the Ld DRP has observed as under:- "7.6 At para 8 of his order the TPO has co....