TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 325
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4.09.2018 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 the entire proceedings are void ab initio. 5. For that the Assessing O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing 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 assessment year. 17. For that without prejudice to the above, the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roposed 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 directions of Ld. DRP. 4. Ground Nos.1 to 4 are not pressed by the assessee therefore, no adjudication is required. 5. Ground No.5 is against upholding M/s. ASK Re Ltd., Hong Kong as Associated Enterprises as p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 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 has mentioned M/s. ASK Re Ltd., Hong Kong as AE and in coloumn No.11B has shown purchase from the AE of Rs. 43,11,06,020/-. The assessee has also mentioned that for benchmarking comparable uncontrolled method has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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, on the other hand, has relied on the orders of lower authorities. 12. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The assessee-company has adopted CUP method as MAM and taken M/s.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me 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 orders of lower authorities. 17. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The A.O has made disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act for the reason that the assessee has made investment which is c....