TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1519
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience. 2. In all the five years, the assessee is challenging the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the transfer pricing adjustment made in respect of fee paid for management services determining the ALP as NIL. In AY 2012-13 and 2013-14, the assessee is challenging the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of writing of loose tools. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Carbon Blocks and brushes, fuses and heat exchangers and also trading in fuses. The assessee was formerly known as Carbon Lorraine India P Ltd and it is subsidiary of Le Carbone Lorraine S.A, France. The assessee has entered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not show what is the tangible and substantial commercial benefit derived by the taxpayer from the alleged services and consequent payment of management/maintenance fees of Rs.91,51,375/- and consequently did not prove the arm's length nature of management fees paid to its AE." 4. The Ld CIT(A) accepted Arm's Length Price in respect of five items and confirmed the decision of TPO in respect of remaining three items. It is pertinent to note that the revenue has not filed appeals challenging the relief granted by Ld CIT(A) in respect of all the five years and hence the said issue has attained finality. The assessee is contesting the transfer pricing adjustment confirmed by the Ld CIT(A) in respect of following three items in all the five ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted enterprises is not only rendering managerial and consultancy services to the assessee, but also is making available to technical knowledge to the assessee. Hence the revenue could not have taken a different stand in the years under consideration. (v) the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the TPO in respect of above said three services. In support of above said contentions, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on host of case laws. 6. We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. We notice that the TPO has accepted that the international transactions at "entity level" is at arm's length. We also notice that the management fee paid by the assessee formed part of operative expenses. Hence the Ld A.R has contended t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd accordingly refused to follow the decision rendered by AAR. We are unable to agree with the view so expressed by Ld CIT(A). When the assessee is making identical payment every year for identical services provided by AE and the revenue has taken a particular stand with regard to the services so provided by the AE, in our view, there is no scope for applying the principle of res-judicata in other years for this matter for taking different stand in others for the identical payments made by the assessee. However, it is not clear as to whether the decision rendered by AAR against the assessee has attained finality or not. 8. Accordingly, on a conspectus of the matter, we are of the view that the issue relating to transfer pricing adjustmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the charges of tools written off. It was submitted before the Assessing Officer that the assessee has practice of writing off of 25% of charges of tools in each assessment year. According to the Assessing Officer, it has to be grouped under the head Block of Assets and depreciation to be claimed at applicable rate. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount and granted depreciation @ 10%. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer on this issue. Aggrieved by the assessee, the assessee is in appeal before us. 11. We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the loose tools is nothing but inventorie....