Case Law Details
Hyundai Construction Equipment India Private Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune)
Ground no.8 of the appeal is against making transfer pricing adjustment on entity level rather than restricting it to the AE transactions. The TPO computed the transfer pricing addition by considering revenues from Manufacturing segment‘ in totality at the entity level The DRP did not concur with the assessee s submission that such issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court on the ground that the SLP filed by the Department was pending.
In our considered opinion, this issue is fairly settled by judgment of Honble jurisdictional High court in CIT Vs. Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 704 (Bom.), holding that the transfer pricing adjustment made at entity level should be restricted to the international transactions only. It is pertinent to mention that the Department‘s SLP against this judgment has since been dismissed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 402 ITR 32 (St.). Similar view has been taken by the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Tara Jewels Exports (P). Ltd. (2010) 381 ITR 404 (Bom.). We, therefore, direct the AO/TPO to restrict the transfer pricing addition to the extent of international transactions under the segment of Manufacturing activity‘
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order dated 29.08.20 17 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinaftealso called ‗the Act‘) in relation to the assessment year 20 13-14.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
