GODREJ CONSUMER PRODUCTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5072/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 June 2023AY 2013-142 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions, stating that the TPO erred in cherry-picking months. The final product of the non-eligible unit served as raw material for the eligible unit at an arm's length price.

What were the facts?

The assessee argued that the transfer price of raw material from a non-eligible unit to an eligible unit was at arm's length. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) cherry-picked certain months to determine the price, ignoring others.

What were the issues?

Whether the Transfer Pricing Officer correctly determined the arm's length price by cherry-picking specific months for raw material transfer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92CA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K”, BENCH

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 7124/Mum/2018
ITA No. 412/Mum/2022

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

CORRIGENDUM/ORDER We are in receipt of letter dated 23.05.2023 mentioning that in the Tribunal order dated 21.12.2022, there is an inadvertent mistake in para no. 37 of the said order, wherein the words ‘eligible‟ and „non-eligible‟ have been interposed. By way of this corrigendum, the mistake apparent is rectified. Para 37 of the order be now read as under:- 37. We find that aforesaid decision supported the arguments of assessee. The final product of non-eligible unit is raw- material for eligible unit. The annual average cost of which the raw-material is transferred from non-eligible unit to eligible unit is at arm’s length price. The TPO has erred in cherry picking the 2 months where the cost is less than the cost of comparatives supplies, this regarding the months where the cost of raw- material is higher than that of comparables. In the facts of the case and the ratio of the decision cited above, we find merit in the submissions of the assessee. This ground of appeal raised by assessee is thus allowed.

With this rectification, there would be no change in the final outcome of the appeal.

More judgments on Section 92CA

All 3,978 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92CA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →