TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1616
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for seeking admission of additional grounds of appeal. The assessee vide this aforesaid application has sought to raise four additional grounds of appeal bearing Ground no.10 to Ground no.13 which read as under: Ground 10: Considering Adjusted Book Profits instead of Income under the normal provisions for computing the deduction allowable under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act') under the provisions of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT') On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)] has erred in not giving specific directions to compute deduction towards section 80HHC of the Act under MAT by considering adjusted book profits instead of the income under normal provisions, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhari information Technology Systems (Pvt.) Ltd [(2012) 17 taxmann.com 62 (SC)]. Ground 11: Re-computing deduction allowable under section 80HHC of the Act under the MAI without regard to the sub-section (1B) of Section BOHHC On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant humbly requ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for adjudication of the aforesaid additional grounds. 4. The next contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee has been that in the impugned order dated 26.03.2021, the Tribunal has not made any adjudication upon Ground No.6 & 7 which are pertaining to the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234D of the Income Tax Act. We find from the record that the Ground No.6 & 7 raised by the assessee read as under: "6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in imposing interest u/s 234B of the Act amounting to Rs.3,99,100/- 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in allowing imposition of interest under section 234D of the Act amounting to Rs.2,52,420/-." 5. We further find that the aforesaid grounds have not been adjudicated by the Tribunal in the common order dated 26.03.2021. This being an error apparent on record, order of the Tribunal is hereby recalled on this limited issue also for the purpose of adjudication of Ground No.6 & 7 of the grounds of appeal of the assessee. 6. The next contention of the ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uring AY 2004-05. In view of the fact that Ld TPO/AO have accepted this benchmarking and not disputed the same, it would unjustified and arbitrary if different stand is taken in context of present dispute involving same year and same assessee. Relevant extract of paperbook is enclosed as Exhibit-F for kind reference. Further at para 7.4 Hon'ble ITAT has noted Applicant's contention as: "higher rate was charged by AE on this purchase, as there was a sudden raise in the international prices of this material, as compared to purchases made by assessee, after the transaction dated 25.3.2003". With utmost respect we wish to draw attention to submissions and material on record which show that contention of Applicant was slightly different and was that ICIS- LOR rates reflect market prices. To meet urgent business requirement to replenish its low stock urgent purchase made from AE is compared with ICIS LOR spot rate. It is important to consider that AE is also a trader. Therefore, valid comparison in CUP can be made only by comparing the impugned transaction price with spot price, which itself by all means is market price for such terms and conditions. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal may be pleased to kindly consider appropriate rectification of mistakes apparent from the record and consequently decide the issues, directing grant of relief in accordance with law and justice." 7. We have considered the submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee-applicant in this respect, we do not find any error apparent on record in respect of aforesaid pleadings of the counsel for the assessee. The contention of the ld. AR has been that the Tribunal in para 7.4 inter alia has observed that no other transaction of purchase of AE is benchmarked with the prices in ICIS-LOR website; that however the applicant's purchase of Paraxylene from AE's was benchmarked using ICIS LOR. 8. However, we find from the order of the Tribunal that the point raised by the assessee was not the sole point to arrive at the final conclusion. The Tribunal has considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case. The relevant para of the observation of the Tribunal are reproduced as under: "On a careful consideration of the rival contentions, perusal of the order of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we are of the considered opinion that the transfer pricing....