TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 575
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act raising following grounds of appeal :- "1. That the orders of the learned lower tax authorities is/are contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2. That the Order of the learned Assessing Officer is framed without following the mandatory procedural provisions of section 144B of the Income - tax Act, 1961 as no show cause notice being draft assessment order was served on the appellant before making the final assessment order. 3. That the learned Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) /lower tax authorities had contrary to law and facts of the case, without any proper basis and properly appreciating and considering the submissions/ evidences / material produced o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the addition of Rs. 84,95,443 is only marginally higher by a mere 0.13% (3.13% {addition on 84,95,443 on international transaction of~ 27,14,55,905} as against a 3% variation (ie Rs. 81,43,677 being 3% of Rs. 27,14,55,905) permitted by notification no. 50/2017; F .No. 500/1/2014 - APA - II dated 9th June 2017. In view of the said fact and considering all the facts and the materiality, the learned Assessing Officer shouldn't have made the addition at all or limited the addition to only Rs. 3,51,766 (being the difference between 3.13% and 3.00%) by allowing marginal relief on the grounds of natural justice and by drawing analogy to various marginal relief provisions 1 sections in the Income - tax Act, 1961, itself. 8. That the lower ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....educing the returned business loss to Rs. 7,69,05,287 be deleted; c. That the Hon'ble DRP / learned lower tax authorities be directed to apply Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method and accept the price at which international transaction has been entered by the appellant), more so, when it has been accepted in earlier years; d. That the Hon'ble DRP / learned lower tax authorities be directed to select only functionally similar companies with normal results if TNMN has to be applied; e. That the lower tax authorities, in any case, be directed to limit the addition to Rs. 3,51,766 (being the difference between 3.13% and 3.00% variance permitted by notification no. 50/2017; F.No. 500/1/2014 - APA - II dated 9th June 2017) by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tyres Limited 255 ITR 273 and further submitted that in the decision of ITAT, Delhi in ITA No.64/Del/2015 in Cash Edge India Private Ltd., the similar issue was considered and adjudicated that Assessing Officer erred in adding back the transfer pricing adjustment of the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. He submitted that exactly similar issue was considered by the coordinate Bench in the abovesaid decision. Therefore, he prayed that the abovesaid adjustment in the book profit is patently untenable and not in accordance with law and, therefore, it should be deleted. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 4. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 1,18,93,468/-to the book profits of the Assessee under section 115JB of the Act without appreciating that book profits of the company cannot be adjusted except as provided in Explanation I section 115JB(2) of the Act and that transfer pricing adjustment is not one of the adjustments contemplated under that Explanation: He placed reliance upon the following decisions to contend that except for adjustments provided in Explanation I section 115JB(2) of the Act, no other adjustment can be made to book profits under section 115JB of the Act :- i. Apollo Tyres 255 ITR 273 (SC) ii. Malayalam Manorma 300 ITR 251 (SC) iii. DCIT v. Bisleri Sales Ltd. 151 TT] 285 (Mum) (IT AT) 35. The Ld. Sr. DR on the othe....