TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 614
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt year 2010-11, in pursuance to the direction of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. Basically the dispute in the present appeal is confined to the addition made of Rs.2,22,73,117/- on account of transfer pricing adjustment relating to international transaction undertaken with the overseas Associated Enterprise (AE). 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity stated to be engaged in Airport Ground Handling Services for Lufthansa Airlines. Such services are provided in pursuance to an agreement executed with the concerned AE. Though, in the year under consideration the assessee had entered into various international transactions, however, presently, we are concerned with determination of arm's length ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arguments only in respect of two comparables selected by the TPO. The first comparable objected by the assessee is Container Corporation of India. In respect of the aforesaid comparable, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the TPO has selected this comparable following the past history of inclusion of comparable by him in assessee's own case and directions of learned DRP upholding the selection of such comparable. He submitted, this comparable is predominantly a Government company as the Government holds 63.09% of share capital. Further, he submitted, the company is not functionally similar as the revenue earned is from freight, handling, terminal service charges, demurrage and other operating income. Whereas, no segmental acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O and learned DRP. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Undisputedly, while selecting Container Corporation of India and Sanco Trans Ltd. as comparables, the Departmental Authorities have basically gone by the past history of transfer pricing assessment in assessee's own case. However, it is observed, while examining the acceptability or otherwise of Container Corporation India in assessee's own case in assessment year 2009-08 [reported in (2021) 133 taxmann.com 491 (Delhi - Trib.)], the Tribunal has rejected the comparable with the following observations: "5.3.1.0 M/s Container Corpn. Of India Ltd: With assistance from both the sides, we have perusal the annual accounts of this c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Monopoly conditions. From the above cumulative reasons, we find that FAR of Container Corporation of India is not akin to that of the assessee. It should, therefore, be rejected as a comparable. We direct accordingly." 8. Same view was reiterated by the Tribunal while deciding assessee's appeal in assessment year 2009-10 vide order dated 30.08.2022 in ITA No.1479/Del/2014. There being no material change in facts involved in the impugned assessment year, respectfully following the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, we direct the Assessing Officer to exclude Container Corporation of India from the list of comparables. 9. Insofar as Sanco Trans Limited is concerned, this company was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the existing warehousing facilities by acquiring similar facilities on outright / lease basis and also creating enhanced volumes in the existing facility, which, it is hoped, will improve its capability to meet the anticipated increase in the volume of business in the sold operations and also result in reduced operating cost. With these actions, planned and anticipated, your directors are confident, barring unforeseen circumstances of reporting better working results in the current year. 5.3.2.1 This clearly highlights the nature of business of this company is primarily in from earning passive income. Revenue shown in Profit &Loss Account is as under: Operating Earnings (Rs. Lakhs) 2008 2007 Handling charges earned 1....