TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 928
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r short) dated 26/02/2022 by (Income Tax Department) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi ["Ld. CIT (A)", for short]. 2. Grounds taken in this appeal are as under: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO have erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at INR 11,98,34,09,834 against the returned income of INR 10,32,25,22,480 making a TP adjustment of INR 1,66,08,87,354. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO ought to have considered the arm's length price of royalty payments for the 3DX model at 4 percent for the AY 2017-18, as agreed between the Competent Authorities of India and the UK under the provisions of Article 27 read with Article 10 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) disregarding the principle of aggregation of benchmarking closely Inked transactions, ignoring the settled ratio decidendi. 5.3 in upholding transfer pricing adjustment stating application of Other Method to broaden the selection criteria for comparable agreements and selecting a non exclusive trademark agreement as comparable to the Appellant's exclusive technology transfer agreement, and not accepting the comparable agreements identified by the Appellant from the TPOs search process. 5.4 in not considering additional agreements proposed by the Appellant based on the search criteria applied by the TPO, 5.5 in computing the ad hoc transfer price of the royalty rate at 2 percent post cert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....89, 18,400 despite the fact that Appellant had timely deposited the DDT with the tax authorities 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the A.O. has erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the appellants. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee JCB India Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of J. C. Bamford Excavators Ltd. U.K. ('JCB' UK) and is engaged of manufacturing of earthmoving and construction equipment from its manufacturing plants. The case of the Assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under e-assessment Scheme 2019 on following issues:- S.No. Issues i. Clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he TPO has requested the AO to take appropriate action with regard to the directions given by the DRP to the AO after taking an overall view and understanding of the facts and circumstances of the case. The assessment order came to be passed on 26/02/2022 by the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26/02/2022, the Assessee preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 5. Ground No. 1 is general in nature which requires no adjudication. Ground No. 2 & 3 as the issue involved thereon pertaining to payment of royalty and the Assessee has entered into Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) with respect to the transactions with UK entities. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 & 3 of the As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for Assessment Year 2018-19 to 2022-23 for the Assessment Year under consideration i.e. 2017-18 which is not covered within the APA period and alternatively also proposed for application of royalty rate stood in APA at 4% of UK entities to non UK entities also. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the instant year is not covered in the MAP proceedings, the MAP rate cannot be applied to royalty transaction done between the assessee company and its AE's in US & Germany and in support of the same, the Ld. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunals order for Assessment Year 2014-15. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that rights granted under the agre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s allowed to withdraw its appeals for A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2013-14 wherein the issues raised are in respect of transaction that stands fully covered by MAP resolution. 3.2. In respect of assessment year 2013-14, it has been submitted that, assessee had transaction with non-UK based AE, for which there is no MAP resolution MAP is drawn after considering relevant aspects giving rise to transfer pricing adjustment to with a particular UK to determine the arm's length price, same parameters cannot be applied to determine the arm's length price of transaction with non-UK based AE. We draw our support from the 3 ITA 7199/Del/17 and group S.A.Nos. 717 and group JCB India Ltd. View expressed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court ....