TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1406
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransfer pricing officer (PTO, hereinafter called) noticed that the assessee had entered into an intellectual property agreement with Navistar Luxemburg Intellectual Co. on 01st November, 2007. The TPO alleged that under the said agreement, the assessee received licence and know how relating to technical / functional asset as well as improvement and brokerage for manufacture and sale of engines in India. He also found that the assessee has paid certain amount to the associated enterprise (AE, hereinafter) towards royalty. Though the assessee had benchmarked the payment of royalty by applying CUP method and claimed the transaction with the AE to be at arm's length; however, the TPO was not convinced. After rejecting the transfer pricing study report, the TPO ultimately held that payment of royalty to the AE is not justified; accordingly, determined the arm's length price of royalty payment at Nil. The adjustment made by the TPO was also upheld by the Ld.Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP, hereinafter called). 4. We have heard Shri HP Mahajani, Ld.Authorised Representative and Shri A Mohan, Ld.departmental representative. It is a common point between the parties that the disputed issue is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich contains full address and website address of the firm. Based on the report of Altus International, range of royalty rate is also mentioned in the covering letter. It has duly been signed by the partner of the firm. It also contains contact persons and phone number for any question regarding report. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, rejection by DRP of the benchmarking report submitted by the assessee is not sustainable. In our considered opinion if authorities below have any doubt about the authenticity of the document, same could have very well inquired from the address and phone number mentioned therein. Hence in our considered opinion, interest of justice demands that this issue may be remitted to the TPO. Learned TPO is directed to consider this issue afresh in accordance with our direction and observation as above. It is open to assessee to canvas other grounds also before TPO with this regard." 7. Facts being identical, following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, we restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh adjudication keeping in view the directions of the Tribunal as reproduced above. Thes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rve, in course of hearing, learned Authorised Representative has furnished before us a copy of MoU between the Government of Maharashtra and M & M, as per which, the Government being keen to generate substantial employment wanted investment to be made through new ventures. In furtherance of such subject, M & M came forward to make substantial investment for a project to manufacture all kind of automotive products through a SPV. The MoU also allowed M & M to carry out such activity through its affiliates / joint venture companies by making eligible investments. The MoU also provided that benefits / incentives under the IPS would be available with regard to the eligible investments. Thus, as could be seen from the facts on record, in terms of MoU between the Government of Maharashtra and M & M, MVML was created as a SPV to carry out the project of manufacturing and sale of commercial vehicles for which various components were provided by affiliates / subsidiary companies and one such company being the assessee, provided the engines for the commercial vehicles. It is the contention of the assessee, though, the eligible certificate has been issued in the name of the SPV but the entire ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity concerned have referred to or made any comment on Annexure-C to the eligibility certificate. Further, in the order passed by learned DRP and more specifically in Para-20.8 of the DRP's order, it has been specifically mentioned that the assessee did not furnish any supporting evidence regarding formation of a consortium of companies for the purpose of setting-up of the mega project and setting out the defined role of each member of the consortium and whether the consortium has been recognized by the Government for implementing the scheme. Learned DRP has further observed that no details and evidences were provided regarding the agreement between the consortium members for allocation of benefit of Sales Tax refund received by the eligible units which set-up the mega project and the basis for such allocation. They have also observed that no evidence was produced whether such agreement, if there is one, has been recognized by the State Government. Learned DRP has observed that no details and evidences were furnished regarding the extent of Sales Tax refund receivable by the sister concern which holds the eligibility certificate, the basis on which it was allocated partly to th....