2023 (4) TMI 578

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in short, "the Tribunal"] concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The Tribunal passed the impugned order pursuant to a remand direction issued by this court in an appeal preferred by the respondent/assessee, which was numbered as ITA 1148/2017. This court via judgment dated 15.12.2017, as noted above, remanded the matter to the Tribunal. 3. To be noted, the Tribunal, in the first instance, had remanded the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), as to whether the "other method" would be the most appropriate method, as was contended by the respondent/assessee. 3.1 It is in this backdrop that the aforementioned impugned order came to be passed by the Tribunal. 4. It is important to bear in mind that the provision for Adv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s that this is because the leeway to use the other method for benchmarking was brought onto the statute only in AY 2012-13. 9.2 Mr Sinha also clarifies (which is something that was not disputed) that for several years prior to the AY 2012-13, the respondent/assessee had been using TNMM for benchmarking its transactions. 9.3 Mr Sinha goes on to state that, all that the Tribunal has directed in the instant case, is to apply the principles which stand encapsulated in an agreement executed between the respondent/assessee and the CBDT. 9.4. It is Mr Sinha's submission that the respondent/assessee is, in a sense, a receptacle for data base which is used by entities located all over the world and therefore, the common cost and revenue nee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h hereafter: "17. In light of the above, we find that the Tribunal, in a series of decisions, have consistently held that even if the year under dispute is not covered by APA, if the FAR is same, APA should be adopted for international transactions for the year under dispute. This view has been taken in the following cases: 1. Honeywell Automation India Ltd 101 Taxmann.com 6 [Pune] 2. Abicor Binzel Automation India Ltd ITA 2253 to 2255/Pune/2014 3. Bundy India ITA No. 7201 Ahd/2017 4. Celtic Technologies 109 Taxmann.com 334 5. Ranbaxy Laboratories 68 ITR 322 [Delhi] 6. Tieto I.T. Services ITA 1398/Pune/2015 18. Accordingly, we direct TPO to consider the FAR of the year ....