TaxTMI 
2026 (11) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear (AY) 2022-23 passed pursuant to the directions od of ld. Dispute Resolution Panel(hereinafter referred to as "Dispute Resolution Panel") vide order dated 19.12.2025 passed u/s 144C(5) of the Act. 2. The issue raised in Ground No.2 is against the order of Transfer Pricing Officer/AO/Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP') making an upward adjustment of Rs. 28,12,504/-to the total income of the assessee in respect of mark-up charged by the Associated Enterprises (AEs) on international transactions of provisions of marketing and business support services. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the Associated Enterprises (AEs) have provided the liaison and support services to the assessee to ensure that such services were provided from th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustment to the ALP. We note that the TPO made the upward adjustment to the arm's length price on the presumption and assumption basis only which is wrong and cannot sustained. It is the settled position of law that TPO cannot disregard the pricing of an international transaction without first determining its arm's length price by following one of the prescribed statutory methods. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench, Mumbai in case of M/s MC Retail Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No.1777/Mum/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12, dated 17.12.2019, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has held as under: "7. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record. The only dispute r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 92C of the Act read with Rule 108 of the Income Tax Rules. However, the aforesaid exercise of determining the ALP in respect of the royalty payable for technical know how has not been carried out as required under the Act. Further, as held by the CIT(A) and upheld by the impugned order of the Tribunal, the TPO has given no reasons justifying the technical know how royalty paid by the Assessing Officer to its Associated Enterprise being restricted to 1% instead of 2%, as claimed by the respondent assessee. This determination of ALP of technical know how royalty by the TPO was adhoc and arbitrary as held by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, (e) In the above view, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial quest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue would become academic in the present facts. Thus, we see no reason to entertain this appeal. However, we make it clear that issues of law which has been raised in the present appeal are left for consideration in an appropriate case. 12. In view of the above, the questions as formulated in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, would make the entire exercise academic. Therefore, the questions as proposed do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs." 8. In both the decisions, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that it is obligatory on the TPO to follow one of the method as mandated by provisions of section 92C of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... processing the return of income, the AO, CPC made an addition in intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 18.03.2021 for A.Y. 2019-20, qua the IGST u/s 43B of Act amounting to Rs. 1,25,65,813/- on the ground that same was not paid and therefore, allowable in terms of section 43B of the Act. Therefore, the same had also been duly disclosed and certified by the tax auditor in Form 3CD filed for the A.Y. 2019-20, which is available at Pages 39 to 40 of the paper books. The said amount was paid during the impugned financial year and was also reported to have been paid in the current financial year in the TAR by the tax auditors. The assessee made this claim during the assessment proceedings which was not considered by the AO despite the s....