TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 2110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollowing grounds of appeal: "1: Assessment Order barred by limitation 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Final Assessment Order dated 27 December 2024, passed by the learned AO under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) and Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act'), having being passed beyond limitation provided in terms of Section 153 of the Act, is void-ab-initio, illegal, bad in law and therefore liable to be quashed. The Appellant prays that the impugned assessment order passed by the Learned AO is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Ground No. 2: Attribution of profits 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Appellant be accepted. 2.5 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Ld. AO further erred in: 2.5.1 not following the order of the Hon'ble ITAT for AY 2014-15. AY 2015-16 and AY 2017-18; 2.5.2 rejecting the transfer pricing study report without any basis, 25.3 alleging that the PE has not been compensated for market risk, product liability risk and credit risk attributable to it; 2.5-4 rejecting the comparable companies as functionally different; 2.5.5 not undertaking the fact finding exercise and failed to substantiate their assumption by not bringing anything on records; 2.5.6 computing the arms' length price of the transaction witho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ution was warranted. Ground No. 3: Incorrect levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that the Learned AO be directed to re-compute the interest under section 234B of the Act as per the law. Ground No. 4: Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act 4.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings oug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urther submitted that the DRP has relied on its own order for AY 2017-18 which substantiates that the fact for the year under consideration are identical to AY 2017-18 and accordingly the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench is applicable for the year under consideration also. The ld. DR did not controvert the submission of the ld. AR. We notice that the Co-ordinate Bench while considering the identical issue for AY 2017-18 in assessee's case held that "9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in Hempel Singapore Pte Ltd vs DCIT, in ITA No. 7296/Mum/2017, vide order dated 08/02/2019, for the assessment year 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to attribute profits to the agency PE so long as the remuneration to the Indian agent has been held to be at an arm's length price. Undoubtedly, the proposition sought to be canvassed by the assessee has the approval of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc (supra). The judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of SET Satellite Singapore Pte Ltd. (supra) is also on the same lines in terms of which it is safe to draw the premise that if appropriate arm's length price has been found to have been applied and paid, nothing more would be left to be taxable in India by attributing further income to the PE of the foreign enterprise. The aforesaid proposition, in our view, is fully attract....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Worldwise Ltd. (supra) is fully attracted in the present case and, therefore, the addition of Rs.5,15,05,000/- to the returned income is clearly untenable in the facts of the instant case. We hold so." 10. We further find that similar findings were also rendered by coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in Hempel Hempel Singpore Pte. v/s DCIT, in ITA No. 6601/Mum./2018, vide order dated 03/04/2019, for the assessment year 2015-16. The learned Departmental Representative could not show us any reason to deviate from the aforesaid orders and no change in facts and law was alleged in the relevant assessment year. The issue arising in the present case is recurring in nature and has been decided in favour of the assesse....