It is seen that the assessee has itself accepted that TNMM is similar to CPM excepting that CPM is based on gross margins whereas TNMM is based on net margins. The assessee has also accepted that if proper selection criteria are adhered to application of TNMM would also result in the fact that the price at which the assessee has undertaken the international transactions are at arm’s length.
On going through the order passed by the Tribunal, it is found that the Tribunal passed the order, after marshalling at the facts considering the submissions made before it and applying its mind to the decisions cited before it. There is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal of the nature as envisaged under section 254(2). Permitting the assessee to raise the same issues over again in the guise of rectification will amount to recalling the appellate order in its entirety and rehearing it afresh, which is not within the scope and ambit of section 254(2).
Income of any educational institute cannot be exempted unconditionally if such institution also exists for deriving of profit. According to this provision, if any educational institution is running on commercial basis then income of such educational institution cannot be exempted from taxation. However, such institution can claim exemption u/s. 11 and 12 as element of profit is not excluded by the Legislature.
The words used in s. 254(2) are ‘shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice’. Clearly, if there is a mistake, then an amendment is required to be carried out in the original order to correct that particular mistake. The provision does not indicate that the Tribunal can recall the entire order and pass a fresh decision.
Perusal of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer does not show any application of mind on his part. He simply accepted the claim of the assessee with regard to the issues considered by the CIT. This is a case where the Assessing Officer mechanically accepted what the assessee wanted him to accept without any application of mind or enquiry.
It is the case of the assessee that since it has mortgaged its property with the bank to enable the company to avail finance facilities from the bank, the advance by the company is not a gratuitous loan or advance, but in return for an advantage which the company has already availed on account of mortgaging of properties done by the assessees.
Land which does not fall under the provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the IT Act and an assessee who is engaged in agricultural operations in such agricultural land and also being specified as agricultural land in Revenue records, the land is not subjected to any conversion as non-agricultural land by the assessee or any other concerned person,
It was held that :- (a) Companies with extra-ordinary circumstances, like those which suffered events like merger/de-merger, impacting the financial results, could not be treated as comparables. (b) Companies having supernormal profit cannot be considered as comparable; (c) Companies which are functionally dissimilar cannot be taken as comparables. (d) Companies acting merely as intermediary having outsourced its activity cannot be considered as comparable.
The scope and ambit of application of section 254(2) is very limited. The same is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. Recalling the entire order obviously would mean passing of a fresh order. That does not appear to be the legislative intent. The order passed by the Tribunal under section 254(1) is the effective order so far as the appeal is concerned.
Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry with regard to SRO rate as on 13.6.2005 and also the fact of giving the possession of the property to the purchaser on 13.6.2005 itself, and to decide the issue in the light of the Tribunal order in the case of M. Siva Parvathi (supra) and the judgement of Kerala High Court in the case of Veepee Enterprises (supra) and the Bombay High Court judgement in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (supra). The Assessing Officer is also directed to consider all the documents produced by the assessee before the CIT(A) while deciding the issue as the grievance of the Assessing Officer is that assessee has submitted additional evidence which was not filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer.
