TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 1,87,05,079/- to the total Income. 2. The AO and the DRP erred in excluding the Export incentive received of Rs.1.52 Cr and Foreign Exchange gain of Rs.0.23 Cr in computing the operating income under TNMM. 3. The AO and the DRP erred in rejecting M/S. Garg Industries ltd as a comparable company. 4.The AO and the DRP erred in identifying M/S. Venus Garments (India) ltd, a functionally different company that of the Appellant as a comparable company. 5. The AO and the DRP failed to appreciate that, the Appellant is a 100% trader exporter and where as M/S. Venus Garments (India) Ltd is a 100% Manufacturer having both export and local sales. 6. The Appellant therefore prays that the upward adjustment of Rs. 1,87,05,079/- to the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciences Ltd vs DDIT[2016] 68 taxmann.com 369 Chennai - Exchange gain (iv) Rolls-Royce India (P) Ltd vs DCIT [2016] 133 DTR 14(Delhi) - Exchange gain (v) Capital IQ Information Systems(India) Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT [2013] 57 SOT 14(Hyderabad) - Exchange gain 5. Per contra, ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. Insofar as duty drawback and export incentives are concerned, the cases relied on by the ld. AR do support assessee's case. As for the case of Goodyear India Ltd (supra) relied on by the Assessing Officer, the issue was whether export incentive and rebate could be reduced from cost of goods. What was held was thast such incentives were available to an assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilar to the assessee and had to be excluded from the selected comparables. Further, according to him, M/s VGL had related party transactions exceeding 25%. 9. Per contra, ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. Further according to him, the issue of RPT was never raised by the assessee before any of the lower authorities. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders. It is not disputed by the Revenue that M/s VGL was a manufacturer exporter whereas assessee was a trading exporter. Lower authorities had still considered it to be a good comparable on a premise that both were in same line of business and exact product profile similarity was not a cardinal requirement. It is true that in a TNM method matching o....