SAERTEX INDIA (P) LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
LAWS(IT)-2014-9-27
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on September 29,2014

Saertex India (P) Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Member (J) - (1.) THIS appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order Dt. 21st Oct., 2011 passed under s. 143(3) r/w s. 144C after considering the guidelines issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel vide its order Dt. 20th May, 2011. The modified grounds of appeal of the appellant read as under. "1. The Asstt. CIT, Circle -6, Pune (AO) erred in law and on facts in making a reference to the Dy. CIT (Transfer Pricing) -IV, Pune (TPO) under s. 92CA of the IT Act, 1961 for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the appellant's international transactions without forming any opinion as envisaged under s. 92C(3) of the IT Act, 1961.
(2.) THE Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition of Rs. 96,49,504 to the appellant's income on account of transaction of sale of finished goods to the AE parties as so proposed by the TPO vide order under s. 92CA(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The Hon'ble DRP, TPO and AO erred on facts in not appreciating the appellant's requests for benchmarking sales transactions to the AE parties, under various alternate approaches as follows: - Comparison of transaction -by -transaction sales rate - Comparison of average rate of sales on a month -by -month basis - Comparison of average rate of sales for the period from 1st April, 2006 till 2nd Feb., 07 - Comparison of average rate of sales for the period from 1st April, 2006 till 28th Feb., 07 The authorities erred in not appreciating the distorted picture of average rate emerging due to an unequal comparison of average sales rate on a yearly basis (and without due adjustments).
(3.) THE Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in law in not appreciating that the learned Dy. CIT, while passing order under s. 143(3) r/w s. 144C has not applied his independent mind to the additions proposed by the learned TPO vide his order under s. 92CA(3) of the IT Act, 1961.;


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