2016 (7) TMI 1682

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), Chennai passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) r.w.s 144C (1) of the Act dated 28.12.2015 of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds. 1) The order passed by the learned Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) read with section 92CA(3) and section 144C(12) of the Income-tax Act (the Act) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2) The learned AO/ Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) erred in making additions to the extent of Rs. 1,83,00,000 to the total income of the assessee on account of adjustment in arm's length price (ALP) of the international transactions entered by the assessee with its Associated Enterprise (AE). 3) The Hon'bl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....losses of a non-eligible unit against the profits of units eligible for deductions under section 10B of the Act. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee company is a subsidiary of CET SA Belgium and CET International SA Belgium, CET India was incorporated in March 2008. CET India has its manufacturing and R&D facility in Chennai. The manufacturing and R&D Units are registered as 100% EOUs under EHTP and STPI schemes respectively. CET India is engaged in the manufacture of modular inverters and power system. It also provides R&D support to the group. 3.1. The TPO passed an order u/s.92CA(3) on 31.12.2014 proposing an upward adjustment of 1.86 crores. The DRP in its order dated 28..12.2015 had held the case in favour of the Reven....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to prove the shifting of profits from India to outside India. Further, ld.D.R relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of M/s.Deloitt Consulting India P Ltd and 24/7 Customers Pvt Ltd. 4.2.1 Further, ld.D.R submitted that the assessee has neither reserved the right for working capital adjustments nor requested for working capital adjustments during the cours of the proceedings. Notwithstanding the above, the benefit of working capital adjustments should not be given to the assessee as the assessee has not demonstrated a negative working capital scenario which is necessary to claim the working capital adjustments. This was upheld by the Co-ordinate Bench of Chennai Tribunal in the case of M/s.Mobis India Ltd. Lastly, ld.D.R submit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore issuing any directions referred to in sub-s. (5),- (a) make such further enquiry, as it thinks fit; or (b) cause any further enquiry to be made by any IT authority and report the result of the same to it. (8) The DRP may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order so, however, that it shall not set aside any proposed variation or issue any direction under sub-s.(5) for further enquiry and passing of the assessment order. (9) If the members of the DRP differ in opinion on any point, the point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members. (10) Every direction issued by the DRP shall be binding on the AO. (11) No direction under sub-s. (5) shall be issued unless an op....