TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under Section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant, assessed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act for AY 2018-19, at INR 61,20,82,286, as against the total income reported in the return of income ("ROT") amounting to INR 51,68,49,838. Transfer Pricing 3. That the Ld. AO/ Learned Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing Officer- 1(1)(2) ("Ld. TPO")/Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ("Hon'ble Panel") have erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by INR 8,98,01,968 in relation to payment of service charges for Technical Support Services ("TSS"), Business Support Services ("BSS") and Managerial, Administrative and Related Services availed from its Associated Enterprises ("AEs"). In doing so, Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO/Hon'ble Panel have grossly erred in: 3.1. contravening the conditions laid in Section 92C(3)(c) of the Act, by citing i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. That the Ld. AO and Hon'ble Panel have erred in facts and in law in holding that contribution by the Appellant towards Corporate Social Responsibility under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 was not 'voluntary', and therefore not eligible for deduction under Section 80G of the Act. Other Grounds 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in charging interest under Section 234B of the Act. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act mechanically on the additions made. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other." The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any grounds herein, or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary, either before or during the hearing." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of the manufacturing and marketing of EGR Systems for the automotive industry. The company also provides technical support services to its customers in relation to EGR systems and its components. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of Technical Support Services ('TSS') & Business Support Services ('BSS') by adopting the segregation approach whereas the assessee's case is, as approved by the ITAT and High Court, that benchmarking should be made by adopting the aggregate approach. The learned AR submitted that the TPO should adopt aggregation approach, and as the margin of the assessee is high as compared to comparable cases and therefore, no adjustment in the arm's length price is called for. 8. Explaining the history of the case, the learned AR stated that for A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13, the TPO has accepted the aggregation approach, which was only disturbed in A.Y. 2013-14. The learned AR pointed out that for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2018-19, no scrutiny assessment were made wherein the assessee had adopted aggregation approach. It was only in A.Y.2018-19, the case was scrutinized and segregation approach was adopted by the AO. Since the aggregate approach has been accepted by the ITAT and approved by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was submitted that for A.Y. 2018-19 also the aggregate approach be adopted and arm's length price of two services Technical Support Services ('TSS') & Business Support Services ('BSS')....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2013-14 has been decided in favour of the assessee, there is no reason that the decision should not apply for A.Y. 2018-19. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and have carefully perused the materials on record. We find that the ITAT in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 at para 52 & 53 has accepted the assessee's view that two types of transactions are to be benchmarked at aggregate level and that the factum of rendering of services by the AEs to the assessee is proved, as under: "52. It is significant to note that when the matter came up before Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in the first round, it was observed that with respect to the transaction by transaction approach v. aggregation of the transaction for subsequent year as well as in the earlier year. Learned TPO had accepted the aggregation approach adopted by the assessee. Learned Co-ordinate Bench also observed that it was not disputed that for AY 2011-12 and 2013-14, Learned TPO had accepted the aggregation approach; and further that following the principle of consistency, where there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case for this year, Learned TPΟ should have followed the same approac....