2024 (12) TMI 418

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 03.10.2018 and 10.10.2017 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short] for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. Since the issues raised in these appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear both the appeals together and pass common order for the sake of convenience. 3. The ld. AR requested to take up the appeal for the assessment year 2014-15 in IT(TP)A No. 62/Chny/2018 as lead case. Therefore, we proceed to take the same as lead case. 4. We shall take up appeal in IT(TP)A No. 62/Chny/2018-AY: 2014-15 5. Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 11 are general in nature and requires no adjudication. 6. Ground Nos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly, a downward adjustment is suggested and ALP of AE cost was determined. The DRP, basing on its earlier findings for AY 2013-14 confirmed the views of the Assessing Officer in rejecting resale price method and adopting Berry Ratio as most appropriate method vide its finding at para 3.1 of the DRP's order. 8. The ld. AR brought on record, before us, copy of order dated 25.05.2022 in ITA No. 739/Chny/2016 passed by the ITAT Chennai in assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 and drew out attention to para 4 of the said order. He submits that the assessee brought on record before the ITAT for AY 2011-12 by stating that those additional evidences were filed for first time and there was no occasion before the DRP and TPO for verification. The ld. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er to the file of the AO/TPO with a direction to admit the above said additional evidences and determine the most appropriate method for adopting the ALP in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, ground Nos. 3 & 4 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Ground Nos. 5 to 9: In view of our decision in ground Nos. 3 & 4, we find the ground Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 becomes infructuous, requiring no adjudication. Accordingly, ground Nos. 5 to 9 are dismissed as infructuous. 12. Ground No. 10 is consequential in nature and requires no adjudication. 13. The ld. AR submits that the assessee is not interest in prosecuting additional grounds raised by them. Accordingly, additional grounds raised by the assessee ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....equest to furnish the details of said expenditure. For having no details, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs..82,62,200/- and added to the total income of the assessee, which was confirmed by the DRP. 20. The ld. AR drew our attention to para 4 of the DRP order in AY 2014-15 and submits that the assessee furnished additional evidence before the DRP, which in turn, having obtained the remand report from the Assessing Officer, deleted the addition made in AY 2014-15. The ld. AR requested that the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer for his fresh consideration and the assessee is ready to file evidences in support of its claim. 21. The ld. DR reported no objection, but, however pointed out that there is no evidence before th....