2026 (6) TMI 852

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Panel passed u/s 144C(5) of the Act. 2. In the misc. application filed by the assessee, the ITAT vide order dated 02.05.2025 recalled the order of the Tribunal dated 12.07.2023 only for adjudicating Ground Nos.5, 6 & 7. Ground Nos.5, 6 & 7 are reproduced below :- "5. On the facts and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in incorrectly computing the net cost-plus margins of the comparable companies selected by the ld. TPO and not sharing back-up calculations with the Appellant. 6. On facts and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in not considering the corrected segmental financials submitted by the appellant after rectifying the mistake apparent from record. 7. On facts and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in not allo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....No. Comparable companies AO order (refer page 11-12 of merit appeal Corrected margin as per the assessee (refer page 236 of ITAT factual paperbook) 1 Ananya Interface and Controls Pvt. Ltd. 9.11% 8.80% 2 Chemstrol Industries Pvt. Ltd. 10.3% 7.76% 3 Eddy Current Controls (India) Ltd. 12.16% 11.85% 4. With regard to ground no.6, ld. AR submitted that the assessee noticed an inadvertent error made in the segment accounts of the assessee wherein an international transaction with AE amounting to Rs. 79,91,176/- in the nature of erection, commissioning and services pertaining to Assembly/ Manufacturing Segment was included in the Engineering Design Services Segment. He further submitted that accord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(Noida) Pvt. Ltd * M/s Sony India Private Limited 157 Taxman 125 * Philips Software Centre (P) Ltd. vs A CIT * Nokia India Pvt Ltd - ITA No. 551/Del/201l, AY 2006-07, ITAT Delhi * Demag Cranes & Components (India) Private Limited -ITA No.120/PN2011 * TNT India Private Limited - ITA No. 1442(BNG)/108 6. He submitted that however, the Ld. TPO rejected the claim for working capital adjustment on the ground that such an adjustment cannot be granted merely due to differences in the levels of inventories, trade receivables, or trade payables. He submitted that according to the Ld. TPO, in the transfer pricing context, working capital adjustments are permissible only where the international transacti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....#39;s directions for A Y 2013-14). The assessee further highlighted that in a subsequent assessment year i.e., A Y 2020-21, the ld. DRP allowed the working capital adjustment. However, in the subject year i.e. AY 2017-18, the Ld. TPO/ AO has disregarded the aforesaid direction of the ld. DRP in A Y 2013-14 (wherein working capital was granted subject to verification) and considered the unadjusted margins of comparable companies and referred page nos. 10 to 12 of merit appeal. 7. In view of his submissions, he pleaded that all the three issues may be sent back to the TPO/Assessing Officer for verification and decide accordingly. 8. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted that he has no objection to remit this issue back to t....