TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1683
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... us are identical to those prevailing in Assessment Year 2012 13 to 2014-15. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision in the case of the Assessee, we hold that TNMM method as adopted by the Assessee was the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction of sale/exports of goods. Accordingly, transfer pricing adjustment of INR 16,59,51,699/- made by the Assessing Officer is set aside, and the issue is remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer for determination of ALP of the transaction of export of finished goods by the Appellant to its AE (i.e. OmniActive Health Technologies Inc., USA) as per TNMM method as adopted by the Appellant. It is clarified that no transfer pricing addition would be made in case the submission of the Appellant that the Appellant's margins in AE Segment are higher than the margins in non-AE Segment is found to be correct. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 1 to 1.4 are allowed for statistical purposes." (Emphasis Supplied) 3.1 It was contended on behalf of the Appellant that a mistake had crept into paragraph 11 above as the Tribunal had remanded the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer despite the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we hold that there was no mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal remanding the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 3.3. During the hearing it was also contended by the Learned Authorised Representative that another mistake apparent on record had crept into paragraph 11 of the order, dated 19/04/2023. It was submitted that the clarification provided in second last sentence of paragraph 11 of the order, dated 19/04/2023, could cause confusion in the remand proceedings leading to an adverse bearing on the adjudication of the issue in the remand proceedings before the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the grievance of the Appellant in this regard would stand redressed in case the aforesaid sentence was deleted. The Learned Departmental Representative did not have objection to the aforesaid submission advanced by the Learned Authorised Representative. Accordingly, in order to redress the grievance of the Appellant, paragraph 11 of the order, dated 19/04/2023, is rectified and the second last sentence, which is reproduced herein below, is deleted: "It is clarified that no transfer pricing addition would be made in case the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....graph 19 to 22 which are followed up by conclusion in paragraph 23 of the order, dated 19/04/2023. In paragraph 21 of the Application it has been urged that multiple mistakes apparent of record has crept into paragraph 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the order, dated 19/04/2023. Having given thoughtful consideration to the contents of paragraph 21 of the Application and the submission advanced on behalf of the Appellant, we are of the view that in paragraph 21 of the application under consideration an attempt has been to make a projection that there is a mistake apparent on record by picking parts/extracts of the order, dated 19/04/2023. The aforesaid approach adopted by the Appellant and/or the Authorised Representative cannot be countenanced. In order to appreciate the findings /reasoning, order dated 19/04/2023, must be read as a whole and the facts/findings stated therein are to be read and understood in proper context. In paragraph 20 of the order, dated 19/04/2023, it has been clearly stated that the decision in the case of Cummins India Limited Vs. DCIT: 96 Taxmann.com 576 pertained to pre-amended provisions. The amendments brought by the Income Tax (Tenth Amendment) Rules, effective f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... falls beyond the scope of Section 254(2) of the Act. For both the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any reasons to accept the prayer of the Appellant to rectify or recall paragraph 12 to 23 the order, dated 19/04/2023, passed by the Tribunal dealing with Ground No. 2 to 2.5 raised in the Appeal. The prayer made by the Appellant in paragraph 22(b) of the application is, therefore, rejected. 5. Before parting we would like to take note of the fact that in paragraph 19 of the application under consideration it has been stated as under: "19 Post hearing the arguments and after considering the specific wordings of the Act, the Hon'ble Bench indicated that, in its view, the matter should be restored to the file of the AO to obtain necessary clarifications from the Central Board of Direct Taxes [„CBDT‟] in view of the sub-section (3) to section 35 of the Act and accordingly concluded the hearing on the issue." 5.1 We note that the miscellaneous application has been signed by a responsible person of the Appellant/company. As per the order sheet entry, the aforesaid person was not present during the course of hearing. Without expressing any views on the bonafides....