TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 951
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Addition on account of transfer pricing adjustments General 2. Erred in making an adjustment of INR 49,33,80,333 to the total income of the Appellant under Section 92CA(3) of the Act on account of adjustment in the arm's length price of the international transaction of sale of raw materials and goods. Rejection of functional and economic analysis undertaken by Appellant 3. Erred in rejecting the functional and economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") in respect of the impugned international transaction of sale of raw materials and goods. 4. Erred in violating the provisions of Rule 10B(1)(e) of the Rules, by not considering the comparison of net profit margin realized by the Appellant from an alleged controlled transaction vis-à-vis net profit margin realized by the Appellant from a similar uncontrolled transaction and thereby rejecting internal Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM") as the most appropriate method ('MAM'). Inappropriate acceptance of non- comparable companies and cherry-picking of compar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t expenditure amounting to INR 73, 82,667/- 12. Erred in disallowing notional interest amounting to INR 73, 82,667/- by holding that the Appellant has provided interest-free loans and advances. 13. Erred in not appreciating that where there are sufficient interest-free funds available, then it is to be presumed that interest free loans/ advances are given out of such interest- free funds and no disallowance of notional interest expenditure can be made. Non-grant of set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation amounting to INR 4,04,40,744/- 14. Erred in not allowing set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation to the extent of INR 4, 04, 40,744/-, as claimed in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act, while computing the total income of the Appellant. Non-grant of credit of self-assessment tax paid of INR 3, 93,730/- 15. Erred in non-granting credit of self-assessment tax paid by the Appellant amounting to INR 3, 93,730/-. Incorrect levy of interest under section 234A of the Act of INR 44, 10,170/- 16. erred in levying interest of INR 44,10,170 under section 234A of the Act without....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h process for the purpose of identification of the said companies and without appreciating the functions performed, assets employed and risks undertaken: i. Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd; ii. Dabur India Ltd; iii. Gillette India Ltd.; iv. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.; v. McNroe Consumer Products Pvt Ltd; vi. Northern Aromatics Limited; vii. Oriental Aromatics Ltd; viii. Shingar Ltd; ix. VLCC Personal Care Ltd. x. Laser Shaving (India) Private Ltd; and xi. Proctor & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd Non consideration of the audited segmental profit and loss account 6. Erred in not considering the audited segmental profit and loss account submitted by the Appellant on the basis of untenable reasons and without considering Appellant's own ITAT order for AY 2012-13. 7. Learned DRP has erred in upholding rejection of segment profit and loss accounts relying upon the DRP directions of AY 2012-13, AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15 and AY 2016-17, without appreciating the facts involved in AY 2017-18. Other grounds: Excess levy of interest under section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5. Erred in equating outstanding receivables with 'loan' or 'debt', considering the fact that 'loan' or 'debt' is extended under an agreement (express or implied) and is a specified sum of money which is always attached with an obligation of repayment. No business practice to charge interest on outstanding receivables or to pay interest on outstanding payables 6. The learned TPO erred in not considering the fact that there is no business practice in Appellant's business to charge interest on outstanding receivables and hence the Appellant has not charged interest from AEs as well as non AEs on delayed receivables. Thereby, no interest adjustment is warranted. Outstanding receivables is inextricably linked with the principal transaction hence it is already benchmarked by the Appellant 7. The learned TPO erred in not appreciating the fact that the overdue receivable from AEs should be aggregated with principal transaction of manufacturing and export of finished goods as it is directly and inextricably linked with it; 8. The learned TPO erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant had selected tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prohibited under section 14 of the Code. As held by the Supreme Court in case of Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. v. Hotel Gaudavan (P.) Ltd. [2017] 88 taxmann.com 202, it has been held that even arbitration proceedings cannot be initiated after imposition of the moratorium under section 14(1)(a) has come into effect and it is not nice in law and could not have been allowed to continue. Further the Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT v Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. [SLP (c) No: 6487 of 2018, dated 10-8-2018] has upheld overriding nature and supremacy of the provisions of the Code over any other enactment in case of conflicting provisions, by virtue of a non-obstante clause contained in section 238 of the Code. In view of this the appeals filed by the assessee cannot be continued to be allowed during the course of moratorium period. Further, the recent amendment to code provides that any resolution plan or liquidation order as decided by the competent authority would be binding on all the stakeholders including the Central Govt., any State Govt. or local authority to which a debt in respect of the payment of the dues may be owed. This will prevent State authorities, Regulatory b....