Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2026 (3) TMI 882

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pectively. Since these appeals relating to same assessee and are involving common issues, therefore, these are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity and convenience. We would first take up the appeal ITA No. 53/GTY/2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is against the order of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the addition of Rs. 50,64,220/- as made by the AO/TPO for the specified domestic transactions entered into by the assessee. 3. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO has no jurisdiction to refer the issue of determination of Arms Length Price of the specified domestic transactions of purchases with the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion of Arm's Length Price (ALP). The Transfer Pricing Officer suggested that the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 50,64,220/- to the specified domestic transactions by the assessee. Consequently, the AO added the same to the total income of the assessee. 6. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) noted that the Transfer Pricing Officer has followed Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as most appropriate method and rightly made the adjustments by selecting suitable comparables considering the size and nature of business of comparables as against the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP) followed by the assessee to benchmark the said transactions. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) justified the addition. 7. We have carefully perused ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... statute must be considered as a law that never existed. To this rule, an exception is engrafted by the provisions of Section 6(1). If a provision of a statute is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings, all actions must stop where the omission finds them, and if final relief has not been granted before the omission goes into effect, it cannot be granted afterwards. Savings of the nature contained in Section 6 or in special Acts may modify the position. Thus the operation of repeal or deletion as to the future and the past largely depends on the savings applicable. In a case where a particular provision in a statute is omitted and in its place another provision dealing with the same contingency is in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gar Works Ltd referred to herein supra which has been followed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of M/s.GE Thermometrias India Private Ltd., stated supra. As such we are of the considered view that first substantial question of law raised in the appeal by the revenue in respective appeal memorandum could not arise for consideration particularly when the said issue being no more res integra." 8. Perusal of the above decision reveals that the omission of clause (i) of Section 92BA of the Act by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01/04/2017 without any saving clause and is retrospective in nature. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Consequently, we set aside the order of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s under: "5.3. Decision on Ground(s) of Appeal No(s). 2: The Appellant contended that the AO should not have made the addition of Rs. 50,64,220/-. It is observed from records that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had adopted Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) in respect of the concerned transactions. The TPO had proposed downward adjustment of Rs. 1,45,08,356/-and the same amount was added back by the AO. The Appellant contends that it had adopted Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method to determine the purchase price from Associated Enterprises (AE) and the same should have been accepted by the AO. It is clear from records that TNMM is the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for the Appellant's case and th....