Case Law Details
Akzonobel India Private Limited Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Delhi High Court)
Appellant submitted that ITAT has erred in subjecting the transaction pertaining to receipt of administrative services to comparable uncontrolled price (‘CUP’) method without demonstrating any comparable instances and ignoring the arm’s length analysis submitted by the Appellant.
He also states that similar administrative services have been provided in the subsequent assessment years and have been accepted by the ITAT.
Upon a perusal of the paper book, this Court finds that all the three authorities below have given concurrent findings of fact that the Appellant had failed to furnish evidence to demonstrate that administrative services were actually rendered by the AE and the assessee had received such services.
This Court is also of the view that every Assessment Year is a separate unit which is governed by its own peculiar facts. Further, the ITAT in the impugned order has clarified that its decision would not prejudice the assessee’s claim in any other assessment year, as it has to be decided based on the evidences produced to establish the claim of receipt of services from AE.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
