2025 (3) TMI 832

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....21 after complying with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP" for short) on the objections raised by the assessee. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in re-computation of the arm's length price ('ALP') of the international transactions of import / export of raw materials / traded goods by proposing an upward adjustment of INR 13,68,21,254. 1.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in applying turnover filter of 10 times of the tested party's turnover and conseque....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4. The facts of the case being that the assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of drip irrigation systems. During the impugned year, the assessee had entered into several international transaction with its AEs, the details of which are reproduced at page no.2 of the order of the TPO passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act. A report of the international transaction was filed by the assessee in Form No.3CEB along with TP documentation, which was submitted during the TP proceedings and the same revealed that the assessee had used TNMM for benchmarking the majority of its transactions, pointing out that its operating margin at 5.30% was within the 35th percentile to 65th percentile of the data set of compar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter considering direction of the DRP passed his final order making adjustment to the ALP to the international transaction to Rs. 13,28,62,592/- as proposed by the TPO. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal raising the above grounds: 8. During the course of hearing before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that he would first lead his arguments on ground no.1.6 raised before us. His plea was that one of the comparable, Nimbus Pipes Ltd. (NPL for short),which had been proposed by the assessee to be included in the final comparable set, had wrongly not been included in the same, and if the same is included, his operating margin would be in line with that of the final sets of the comparabl....