TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 325
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act") pursuant to the directions dated 24.09.2018 of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangaluru (hereinafter "DRP") u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 92CA r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "1. For that the order of the Assessing Officer is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case to the extent prejudicial to the interest of the appellant and at any rate is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 2. For that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction. L 3. For that the assessment is barred by limitation. 4. For that the reference made to the Transfer Pricing Officer is not accordance with law and consequently....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the Assessing Officer erred in applying the third limb of Rule 8D in working out the disallowance u/s. 14A. 14. For that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that no exempt income was earned by the appellant in the impugned assessment year. 15. For that without prejudice to the above, the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that disallowance u/s.14A read with rule 8D was not warranted as no expenditure was incurred by the appellant for earning exempt income. 16. For that without prejudice to the above, the Assessing Officer erred in applying Rule 8D on entire investments without considering the fact that all the investments did not yield any return in the form of dividend during the impugned assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that M/s. ASK Re Ltd., Hong Kong is not AE and CUP as most appropriate method (MAM) and applied TNMM as MAM to make the adjustment in respect of purchases from the AE. The A.O forwarded a draft of the proposed order of assessment proposing TP adjustment of Rs. 5,42,65,839/- on the international transactions and disallowances of Rs. 7,87,500/- u/s. 14A of the Act r.w Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee objected the proposed addition before Ld. DRP. The Ld. DRP in the direction issued dated 24.09.2018 has confirmed draft assessment order rejecting assessee's objections and holding M/s. ASK Re Ltd., Hong Kong as AE and TNMM as Most Appropriate Method. The A.O has passed the final assessment order in conformity to the direction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Ld. AR further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT v. M/s. Page Industries Ltd. [2021] 431 ITR 0409 (Kar.) and other case laws. 7. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), Mr. A. Sasikumar, CIT, on other hand, has supported the order of TPO and Ld. DRP and argued that the assessee itself in filled Form-3CEB has declared M/s. M/s. ASK Re Ltd., Hong Kong as AE and reported the transactions with AEs. The Ld. DR has submitted that Section 92A of the Act is clearly applicable as held by TPO/Ld. DRP. 8. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The assessee has filed Form-3CEB on 29.11.2014, where in coloumn No.10 h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CUP method as MAM. The Ld. AR has submitted that M/s. ASK Re Ltd., Hong Kong has purchased goods from third parties and sold to the assessee-company at margin of 1.09%, which is mark up for handling and advance payment made by them. The Ld. AR has argued that price charged by the AE is comparable to the price charged by the third party, had the assessee company directly purchased from third party and therefore, comparable price is readily available. The Ld. AR has further submitted that when CUP method is readily available, there is no occasion to reject the CUP as MAM and adopt TNMM methods. The Ld. AR has relied on the order of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2023] (6) TMI 348 (Mumbai-Trib.). 11. The Ld. DR, o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, relying on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce vs. CIT has made the disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Rules. 15. The Ld. AR has argued that the assessee does not have any exempt income and the A.O has made the disallowance without recording any reason and therefore, disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is uncalled for. The Ld. AR in this respect relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Del) and the order of ITAT, Chennai in the case of M/s. Maxivision Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT in ITA No.139/Chny/2020 (Chennai-Trib.). 16. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, has relied on the or....