TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1999
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that the apparent typographical mistakes in the PLI-related calculations are corrected and the benefits of +/-5% available u/s 92C(2) of the Act are granted, the assessee is at home and no addition on TP account is warranted. Said mistake relates to assessee's PLI of 6.01% and the TPO/Assessing Officer erroneously considered the PLI of 3.87%. On these facts, the AR for the assessee submitted for adjudication of the ground no. 4 of the assessee's appeal first is appropriate. If the same is allowed in favour of the assessee, the adjudication of other TP grounds becomes an academic exercise only. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the ground no. 4 first and the same reads as under :- "4. Not granting the benefit of permissib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld that the objections raised by the assessee have no merit and vide the directions u/s. 144C(5) of the Act dated 30/08/2010, DRP confirmed the above proposed addition of Rs. 4,79,01,670/- (Rs. 4,73,14,991 + Rs. 5,63,234 + Rs. 23,445). In conformity with the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer made a final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 20.09.2010. In the said assessment order, the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 13,91,00,800/- which included the TP adjustment of Rs. 4,73,14,991/- and other additions. 5. Aggrieved with the orders of the Assessing Officer/TPO/DRP, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal in the first round. 6. In the first round of proceedings before the Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed calculations and granting of benefits of the provisions of section 92C(2) of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer made an addition on account of non-TP issues of prior period expenses, amounting to Rs. 5,63,234/-. 9. TP issue - Ground No. 4: Brief facts, that are specific to the said ground no. 4 include that the PLI of the assessee as determined by the TPO is 6.01% against the PLI of 8.90% of the comparables. The benefits of the provisions of section 92C(2) of the Act i.e. (+/-5%) is available to the assessee. If the same are considered, the TPO should not have made TP adjustment if any as the difference of PLIs falls in the range of +/-5%. Contrary to the same, the addition of Rs. 4,94,95,000/- came up in view of the fact th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....figure of 3.87% instead of 6.01%. This errors gave rise to the TP adjustment of Rs. 4,94,95,000/-. If the figure of 3.87% is considered, there shall be no TP adjustment warranted in view of the benefits of +/-5%. In this regard, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that this fact can be verified at the level of the Assessing Officer/TPO. Considering the said factual position and subject to the verification of these claims of the assessee by the Assessing Officer, the figure of 6.01% should be taken as PLI of the assessee at the entity level. In that case, no adjustments are required in view of the facts that the average of PLI of the comparables qua the assessee's profits margin, fall within the range of +/-5% of the ALP. The TPO/Assessing Off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....therefore, the reduction in price has been claimed as expenditure in this year. The A.O. has relied on various judgements and noted that the Auditors have themselves categorized the expenditure as prior period expenditure. It is noted that the sales pertained to the earlier year, i.e. A.Y. 2005-06 and the assessee claims that rebate has been given on the sales amount of the earlier year in the current year. However, no evidence regarding applicability of such rebate on the sales amount have been furnished. It is submitted that the rebate was passed on due to decrease in price. However, once the sale is executed in a particular year, i.e. A.Y. 2005-06, it is not understood as to how the subsequent decrease in prices can be accommodated as re....