TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR (P) LTD. Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
LAWS(IT)-2014-7-40
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on July 11,2014

Toyota Kirloskar Motor (P) Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Respondents

JUDGEMENT

N.V.Vasudevan, Member (J) - (1.) THIS appeal by the assessee is against the order passed on 21.10.2011 by the ACIT, LTU, Bangalore u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income -tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" in short"], incorporating the directions of the DRP dated 27.9.2011.
(2.) THOUGH the assessee has raised about 30 grounds in its grounds of appeal filed along with Form 36B, ground No. 12 & 22 to 24 raised therein was taken up for consideration. If the contention of the assessee on ground No. 12, 22 to 24 is accepted, then the other issues raised in the grounds of appeal need not be gone into and those grounds would be left open for adjudication in the appropriate proceedings in the appropriate assessment year. Gr. No. 12, 22 to 24 raised by the Assessee in its grounds of appeal reads thus: The learned Assessing Officer, learned Transfer Pricing Officer and Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel have erred in Gr. No. 12: not appreciating that the trading and manufacturing segments are intertwined and inter -related warranting a "combined Transaction Approach" in arriving at the arm's length price. Gr. No. 22: doing separate evaluation of royalty payment, technical fees and other payments by adopting CUP method without justifying how the same was most appropriate method. Gr. No. 23: Concluding that arm's length price of royalty payment, technical fees and other payments as NIL without bringing on record any comparable; Gr. No. 24: Concluding that the taxpayer has not been able to show that it derived any economic benefit from the alleged know -how received from the associated enterprises ignoring the evidence supporting the same, which were on record;
(3.) THE assessee is a company. It is in the business of manufacture and selling Multi Utility Vehicles under the model name 'Innova' and passenger cars under the model 'Camry' and 'Corolla'. For the A.Y. 2007 -08, it filed a return of income on 19.10.2007, which was revised on 3.1.2008 declaring an income of Rs. 118,56,65,783. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee is a subsidiary of Toyota Motor Corporation, Japan and has entered into international transaction with its holding company during the previous year. The transaction with the holding company was an international transaction with an Associated Enterprise (AE) and therefore the price at which the international transaction was carried out has to pass the Arm's Length price test laid down in Sec. 92 of the Act.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.