TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 580
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 26.09.2024 emanating from Dispute Resolution Panel's order under section 144C of the Act, dated 06.09.2024 emanating from Draft Assessment Order dated 22.12.2023. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as under : "That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. 1 The impugned order of the learned AO pursuant to the directions of the Honourable DRP, erred in assessing the total income at INR 194,660,775 as against the returned income of INR 98,697,530 reported by the Appellant, Grounds relating to transfer pricing matter 2. The learned TPO/AO erred, in law and in facts, by accepting the following company as comparable although this is functionally not comparable to the Appellant and without following due pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment order without the learned TPO's order giving effect order to the Honourable DRP's direction. 8 The learned TPO/ AO have erred, in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, by not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules'), and modifying the same for determination of ALP of the subject transaction and holding that the same are not at arm's length. 9 The learned TPO/AO have erred, in law and facts, by not making suitable adjustments to account for differences in the risk profile of the Appellant vis-à-vis the comparables. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n that Maxim SMT Technologies Private Limited is in the business of manufacturing. Ld.AR submitted that there are no segmental. Therefore, ld.AR pleaded that Maxim SMT Technologies Private Limited is not comparable with Assessee. 2.1 Ld.AR submitted that the margin of comparable Debak Enterprises Private Limited is actually 2.92%, but TPO erroneously considered it as 15.8%. Ld.AR filed working of the margin. Ld.AR also submitted that there has been no Transfer Pricing Adjustments for the earlier Assessment Year which was selected for scrutiny. Ld.AR also submitted that he will not argue on the other grounds, and submitted that other grounds may be kept open. Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le for trading activity segment. Out of which, the assessee has raised objection to only one comparable company i.e., M/s Maxim S M T Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Further, in this regard TPO's comments along with the assessee's submission as under: (a) M/s Maxim S MT Technologies: Assessee's submission: The assessee has stated that the said comparable company should be excluded from the final set of comparable for the following reasons: As it is tis functionally different to assessee company since it is engaged in only in manufacturing activity segment and revenue from trading activity is NIL. TPO's comments: The contention of the assessee has been verified and found unacceptable. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer while selecting the comparables had applied various filters which are mentioned in para 6 of the order. One of the filters was trading upon total sales more than 75%. Thus, this filter was applied by TPO himself. 7.1 Regarding Maxim SMT Technologies Private Limited, the Dispute Resolution Panel has mentioned as under on page 16 of the order : "Trading Turnover" filter : As per the applicant, the trading proportions are 63.99% 59.51% and 57.73% respectively, and the comparable fails the filter of 75% trading turnover. Panel notes that as regards to the "Trading Turnover" filter, there is minor difference between the thresholds and the Transfer Pricing Officer is directed to reduce the Trading turnover threshold to 50% and ....