2024 (12) TMI 258

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ITAT) in ITA No.1492/Del/2015 in respect of assessment year (AY) 2010-11. 2. The impugned order is a common order passed in respect of four appeals being ITA Nos.1492/Del/2015, 1205/Del/2016, 344/Del/2017 preferred by the Assessee, and ITA No.1117/Del/2015 preferred by the Revenue. However, the present appeal is confined to the impugned order so far as it rejects the Assessee's appeal in respect of AY 2010-11. 3. The Assessee is an Indian company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 15.11.2007. It is a subsidiary of M/s Luxottica Holland B.V. The Assessee is primarily engaged in the business of trading of sunglasses. The Assessee filed its return of income for the previous year relevant to the AY 2010-11 on 13.10.2010 declaring ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the impugned order, the learned ITAT remanded the matter to TPO to decide afresh as this Court had disapproved the application of the BLT in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax-III: (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del). In Assessee's own case for subsequent AY, the ALP was determined without applying the BLT. In the aforesaid context, the Department Representative (DR) appearing before the learned ITAT had submitted that the matter be restored before the TPO for adjudication afresh. which was accepted by the learned ITAT. Paragraph no. 10 of the impugned order is set out below: "10. The ld. DR candidly submitted that if the matter is restored for a fresh adjudication in the light of the order passed by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... unlawful and unjust in the face of TPO's acceptance for AY 12-13 involving identical facts and law that AMP is 'function' in larger transaction of trading or import of goods and not separate 'international transaction' requiring separate adjustment? b) Without prejudice to above, having rejected Appellant's prayer to adopt common approach for all 3 years involving same facts and law, whether Tribunal erred in unjustly and unlawfully ignoring to separately adjudicate grounds of Appeal Nos. 4 to 4.8 relating to transfer pricing adjustment made to transaction of import of finished goods by application of Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNNM') as Most Appropriate Method ('MAM'), especially after noting and following coordinate ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....filed before the learned ITAT and had drawn the attention of this Court to grounds raised for challenging the adjustment in respect of transactions pertaining to purchase of finished goods. The said grounds are set out below: "4.1 That the action of Hon'ble DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO of rejecting the Resale Price Method ("RPM") applying Transaction Net Margin Method ("TNMM") as the Most appropriate Method ("MAM") under section 92C of the Act to determine ALP of impugned international transaction is completely arbitrary and calls for being reversed. 4.2 That the Ld. AO / Ld. TPO / Hon'ble DRP while rejecting RPM as the MAM, erred in ignoring the fact that the Appellant had earned sufficient gross margins vis-a-vis the comparable companie....