PANASONIC CONSUMER INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
LAWS(IT)-2014-11-17
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on November 18,2014

Panasonic Consumer India Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Chandra Mohan Garg, Member (J) - (1.) THE aforementioned ITA No. 1418, 1419/Del/2008 have been preferred by the assessee whereas ITA No. 1374 and 1375/D/2008 have been preferred by the revenue against the separate two orders of the CIT(A) -XX, New Delhi both dated 31.1.2008 in Appeal No. 180 & 181/2007 -08/CIT(A) -XX for AYs 2003 -04 and 2004 -05 respectively. For the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience in the proper adjudication, these appeals have been clubbed and are being adjudicated by this consolidated order. Assessee's appeal in ITA No. 1418 & 1419/Del/2008
(2.) FROM careful perusal of the grounds raised by the assessee in both these appeals, we note that except amount, grounds raised in these appeals are similar. For the sake of clarity and transparency in our findings, the grounds raised by the assessee in A.Y. 2003 -04 read as under: - "1.0 That the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case in holding that the segregation of trading functions pertaining to the CPD and SPD divisions of the assessee were properly done by TPO although: i) Functions performed, risk assumed and assets employed by both the divisions were identical. ii) Method employed for determining the arm's length i.e. TNMM was proper. iii) The PLI of the comparables was alright. 2.0 That the order passed by the CIT (A) is bad in law and on the facts & in the circumstances of the appellant's case on the aspect of transfer pricing in which addition of Rs. 1,15,03,254/ - has been confirmed by CIT (A) u/s. 92CA(3) of the I.T. Act. Hat the CIT (A) has grossly erred in holding tHat segregation of CPD and SPD division of the assessee, which are two trading divisions was proper, merely on the ground tHat the target customers of these two divisions were different.
(3.) 0 The CIT (A) ought to have held that under the TNMM method it is the broad functions which are required to be compared and if most of the functions performed by the assessee and the comparable cases are identical, the same cannot be rejected on an isolated reason that the target customers and product lines of CPD & SPD are different.;


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