TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1457
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts Associate Enterprise ('AE') i.e. NTT Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd. ('NTT Asia'). 1.2. The Hon'ble DRP / Ld. TPO/Ld. AO have erred in law by considering management fees paid as a separate class of transaction and segregating it for benchmarking purposes. 1.3. The Hon'ble DRP/Ld. TPO/Ld. AO have erred in rejecting the TNMM analysis adopted by the Appellant to benchmark management fees paid and have also failed to demonstrate how the CUP/Other Method is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the transaction and alleging that the provisions of Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 have been contravened. 1.4. The Hon'ble DRP/Ld. TPO/Ld. AO have erred in facts and law in not considering or ignoring the detailed analysis and evidence presented by the Appellant as regards the benefits received by the Appellant towards the management services availed from its AE and rejecting such detailed analysis of the Appellant without providing proper justification. 1.5. The Hon'ble DRP/Ld. TPO/Ld. AO have erred in rejecting the detailed documentary evidence with respect to various categories of services received by the App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion u/s 143(1) of INR 18,10,83,967/- 2.1. The Ld. AO has erred in making an adjustment of INR 18,10,83,967/- for the refund received by the Appellant for Customs and VAT, as it should not be considered as an income under the Income-tax Act. 2.2. The action of the AO has resulted in the addition of an amount not claimed as an expense by the Appellant for the year under consideration. 3. Ground 4: Short grant of Tax Deducted at Source ('TDS') credit amounting to INR 24,34,707/- On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO have erred in granting TDS credit of INR 54,38,50,402/- against INR 54,62,85,108/- as claimed in the return of income filed by the Appellant. The Appellant, therefore, prays the Hon'ble Members to direct the learned AO to grant balance credit for TDS of Rs. 24,34,707/- 4. Ground 5: Levy of Interest u/s 234A/234B/234C/234D/234F: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in levying interest u/s 234A/234B/234C/234D/234F as it will not be applicable. The Appellant being aggrieved is filing the present appeal. The Appellant craves lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds of appeal, which is ground No1, is covered in favour of the assessee in its own case for earlier years, wherein similar transfer pricing adjustment has been deleted by Tribunal, copies of such decisions are already placed on record. While explaining the facts, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) suggested transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 151,57,42,646/-on account of payment of Management Fees. The appellant-assessee is engaged in the trading of networking products and in providing related services such as training, maintenance, installation, consultancy, facility management, outsourcing and systems integration the area of information communications systems, and computer networking. The business activities of the assessee are accepted by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) on page 1 of his order. The appellant-assessee has paid an amount of Rs. 166.32 crores as management fee to its Associated Enterprise (AE), in consideration of providing various services in the field of business development, corporate communication, brand management, human resources, information technology, finance etc. The T.P.O. assessing officer (A.O.) has made an adjustment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce, the matter is fully covered by earlier years' decisions stated above. 3. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of TPO/AO and DRP. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the orders of lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on the decisions of Tribunal in assesses own for earlier assessment years. On careful consideration of the facts, we find that this issue is repetitive in earlier various assessment years. In AY 2011-12, similar adjustment / additions were suggested by TPO, which were confirmed by DRP and on further appeal before Tribunal in ITA No. 2280/Mum/2016, entire additions were deleted vide order dated 16.08.2017. The order of Tribunal in AY 2011-12 was followed in AY 2017-18 in ITA No. 722/Mum/2022 dated 04.09.2023. we find that on similar issue/ adjustment in AY 2018-19 in ITA No. 2491/Mum/2022 dated 24.06.2025, it was argued on behalf of the assessee that Bombay High Court in Merk Limited (389 ITR 70) held that the payment of management fee does not require separate benchmarking and therefore, if overall profit margin of assessee at entity level is comparable un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irections may be given to allow relief to the assessee. 8. On the other hand, the learned CIT-DR submits that similar directions may be given to the AO as were given in AY 2020-21. 9. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities and the relevant record placed before us. We find that the parties have not disputed the facts. The CPC made an adjustment on account of refunds from custom and VAT/GST and treated the same as income of the assessee. We find that refund of tax does not partake the character of income, being a balance sheet item. Thus, we direct the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to verify the facts and allow relief to the assessee in accordance with law. In the result, Ground No. 2 is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Ground No. 3 relates to short grant of TDS credit of Rs. 24,347.07. 11. The learned AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer has not allowed credit of TDS aggregating to Rs. 24,34,707. The AO may be directed to verify the facts and allow credit thereof. The learned CIT-DR has not objected to such directions. Considering the fact that the parties are not in disput....