TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1008
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent order passed under Section 143(3) read with section 144(3) of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) dated 26th may, 2016, was partly allowed. 02. The assessee aggrieved with the same has raised following grounds of appeal:- "Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, Torrecid India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant) respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by learned Assessing Officer ("ld. AO") dated 26 May 2016 / Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ("Ld. CIT(A)") dated 09 May 2022 under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the following grounds: 1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment: INR 1,66,15,022/- * ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the international transaction.. of import of raw materials and finished goods. 4. Erred in rejecting Nilchem Industries Ltd. and accepting Golden Chemicals Pvt Ltd. as comparable companies to the appellant * On a without prejudice basis, based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting Nilchem Industries Ltd, which was selected by the assessee in its Transfer Pricing Study report. * On a without prejudice basis, based on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not rejecting Golden Chemicals Pvt Ltd. as it has different financial year end as compared to the appellant. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....diary of its foreign Associated Enterprises. These international transactions were benchmarked by the assessee adopting Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method as the Most appropriate method [ MAM] selecting foreign Associated Enterprises as tested party prices compared by adopting internal comparables that Associated Enterprises has sold comparable products to assessee as well as other non-AEs under similar circumstances submitting the date of sales for the year. Thus, international transactions were stated to be at arm's length. 06. The learned Assessing Officer examined the detail of sales as well as copies of the invoices raised by Associated Enterprises on assessee as well as non-Associated Enterprises. He found that transactions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 28th January, 2016. 07. Accordingly, the draft assessment order was passed on 22nd February, 2016, determining the total income of the assessee at a loss of Rs.1,16,90,237/-. Over and above, the transfer pricing adjustment and certain other corporate additions were made which is not part of appeal before us. 08. The assessee vide letter dated 13th May, 2016, conveyed that it did not want to agitate before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel and therefore, the assessment order was passed on 26th May, 2016, at a loss of Rs.1,16,19,237/-. 09. The assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), wherein the transfer pricing adjustment was contested. Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee challenged MAM rejected by the lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e parts from the Associated Enterprises. Now before us in the grounds of appeal, assessee has challenged the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,66,15,022/-. 013. By ground no.2, assessee has also challenged that CUP method selected by it should be considered as the most appropriate method and further foreign Associated Enterprises selected by the assessee as a tested party is not accepted by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer. However, both these ground are not contested before us. 014. Therefore, now the only issue remains is with respect to the inclusion and exclusion of comparables accepting the Transactional Net Margin Method and PLI of OP/Sales as the correct parameters for benchmarking. 015. The assessee has objected the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claim of the assessee is that the assessee has accepted the same in its transfer pricing submission which was also accepted by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer in its order. Further, it is the claim of the assessee that assessee does not file any claim before the learned CIT (A) for exclusion of Nilchem Industries Ltd. We find that in the remand report proceedings, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer included the above comparable company i.e. Nilchem Industries Ltd. having the margin of 10.78%. The assessee did not object to this comparable company for its exclusion but provided the correction in the margin. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer recomputed the margin of (-) 3.23%. Thus, we find that Nilchem Industries Ltd. is a comparab....