TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1314
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in making a transfer pricing adjustment of INR 141,41,15,411 and making corporate tax disallowances of INR 8,77,00,630. Jurisdictional Grounds 3. That the final assessment order is barred by limitation having been passed beyond the limitation prescribed under section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 4. That, without prejudice, the final assessment order is also bad in law since it is not in conformity with the directions issued by the DRP. Transfer Pricing - Factual Grounds Manufacturing Segment 5. That the TPO / DRP erred in making/confirming the adjustment of INR 119,22,81,774 to the manufacturing segment. 5.1. That the TPO / DRP have grossly erred on facts and in law in invoking the provisions of section 928(2) of the Act to treat sales made to unrelated parties as "deemed international transactions". 5.2. That the TPO / DRP erred in treating the sales of INR 674,24,30,000 with third-party OEM's/customers as "deemed international transactions". 5.3. That the TPO/DRP erred in coming to the conclusion that the sales made by the Appellant to third-party OEMs in India were influenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating expense. 6.4 That the TPO / DRP have erred in failing to make appropriate adjustments to account for differences in the level of depreciation between the Appellant and the comparable companies while redetermining the ALP of the international transaction carried on by the Appellant, thereby rendering the comparability analysis defective. Errors committed by the TPO/DRP while computing the adjustment in the manufacturing segment: 7. That the TPO / DRP have grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case in proposing the TP adjustment of INR 119,22,81,774 to the operating profit of the manufacturing segment of Appellant company and in doing so: 7.1. That the TPO/DRP have erred in undertaking a fresh comparable analysis, when seven comparables were already accepted as valid comparables. In such a situation, a fresh analysis or additional comparables were not warranted for the analysis, 7.2. That the TPO/DRP have erred by rejecting, without cogent reasons, the quantitative and qualitative screens/ filters applied and set of comparable companies arrived at by the Appellant in the TP Documentation follo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 22,18,33,637 in respect of royalty paid to MSI Japan for receiving license to manufacture and technical assistance. 9. That the TPO/DRP erred in separately benchmarking the payment of royalty, which already formed part of the cost base of the manufacturing segment, which stood benchmarked by applying TNMM and hence it was not open for being benchmarked separately. 10. That, without prejudice, the TPO/DRP have erred in rejecting the economic analysis contained in the TP Documentation maintained by the Appellant in accordance with Section 920 of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Rules, and in proceeding to re-determine the ALP of the international transaction pertaining to payment of royalty, without assigning any cogent reasons and in doing 50: 10.1 That the TPO / DRP have grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case in proposing a TP adjustment of INR 22,18,33,637 in respect of royalty paid to the AE, by arbitrarily restricting the royalty rate from 3.5 percent to 0.78 percent based on an alleged benchmarking using a range derived from four comparable royalty agreements, without proper appreciation of the facts of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as purchased and which claim was duly allowed in the immediately preceding year. 14. That the AO erred in law in sustaining the addition of INR 6,16,914 under section 69C of the Act in violation of the DRP Directions to delete the said addition. 15. That, without prejudice, the AO erred in invoking the provisions of Section 69C of the Act while failing to appreciate that: a. the payment of such interest was made through the banking channels and b. such interest was duly disclosed / recorded in the books of accounts of the Appellant. Other Consequential Grounds 16. That the AO has grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under reporting of income, in consequence of misreporting. 17. That the AO has grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act." 3. Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee by referring to Jurisdictional ground No. 3 submitted that the final assessment order is barred by limitation having been passed beyond limitation prescribed u/s 144C(13) of the Act. Ld. DRP directions dated 29.12.2025 page No. 62 to 121 of paper b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion Technology Act, 2000 has been subject matter of consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. G. S. Chatha Rice Mills reported (2021) 2 Supreme court Cases 209 dated 23.09.2020 as under:- "The dispatch of a record occurs when it enters a computer resource outside g the control of the originator. The time of receipt of the electronic record is fixed by the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 13. When the addressee has designated a computer resource, receipt occurs when the record enters the computer resource so designated. Otherwise, where no computer resource is designated, the receipt of the record is when it is retrieved by the addressee. These provisions have been incorporated in the law to enable the dispatch and receipt of a record in the electronic form to be defined with precision with reference to both time and place." On a cohesive reading of provision of section 130 and 144B of the Act read together with section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, we hold that the moment document is uploaded by the originator (which in the present case Id DRP) on 07.04.2022 in ITBA portal that dispatch from the side of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e notice with a draft Assessment Order, as was mandatorily required, under Section 1448 of the Act, as such, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error. However, at the same time, considering the fact that the Faceless Assessment Scheme has been introduced recently and therefore, the Revenue ought to have been given some leverage to correct themselves and take corrective measures and therefore the High Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Assessment Officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after following the due procedure, as required under the law, namely, more particularly, under Section 144B of the Act." 14. So appeal may be rejected. 15. From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that the appellant assessee has not pressed any of the grounds but claimed that case is squarely covered by order dated 19.03.2024 in the case of "Nikon India Private Limited vs ACIT". 16. The comparative table of vital events and dates of Nikon and present case are:- S. No. Events Nikon Present 1. Directors of DRP issued under section 144(c)5 17.03.2022 08.04.2022 ....