UIL ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT, DCIT, NFAC, DRP, CIVIC CENTER, NEW DELHI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV & SHRI MANISH AGARWALUIL Electronics India Private Limited, Plot No.114-116, 123-126B, Ecotech-1 Extension, Greater Noida- 201308. Uttar Pradesh
PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM:
The present appeal of the assessee is arising out from the order of Ld.
Assessing Officer dated 19th July, 2024 and relates to Asst. Year 2020-21. 2. Brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of authorities below are that the assessee is a company and engaged in the manufacturing of mobile accessories. The assessee is exporting the manufacturing products to its Associated Enterprises (AE) only. The assessee is 100% captive unit, which means the assessee does not have any transactions with non-associated enterprises for the year under consideration. The assessee has entered into international transaction with AEs; accordingly, a reference was made to the TPO, who after analyzing the TP study report of the assessee made an upward adjustment Rs. 8,46,27,297/- and, thereafter, restore the matter to file of the AO. The Assessing Officer thereafter, passed draft assessment order, against
UIL Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, DCIT, NFAC, DRP which the assessee filed its objection before the DRP, Ld. DRP affirmed the order of TPO. Thereafter, final assessment order, which is impugned before us, has been passed by the AO. Assessee has raised so many grounds of appeal, however the controversy involved in this appeal is narrow down to following issues:
(a) non-selection of the comparable who are having expenses in the field of R&D equivalent to 2% of the net sell.
(b) non-providing of working capital adjustment to the assessee by the TPO.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee appearing on behalf of the assessee. Vehemently argued that the TPO has not taken the such comparables which are having R&D expenses to the tune of 2% of total sales and, hence, the approach of the TPO is not correct in the bench marking the international transaction. In simple word, it is the contention of the assessee is that R&D filter may kindly be provided. Similarly, the Counsel for assesse vehemently argued that both the authorities have failed to appreciate that if the working capital adjustment filter would be given to the assessee then no further adjustment is called for in this case.
Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. However, concurred with the suggestion of the bench that matter requires fresh consideration at the end of TPO.
After considering the rival submissions, we observed that facts and figure with respect to the contention made by the assessee before us are not properly appreciated by the lower authorities. For example, the lower authorities have failed to make any comment with respect to the working capital adjustment as computed and submitted by the assessee before them. Therefore, the interest of justice, we remit this matter to the file of TPO for the examine afresh after giving Order pronounced in the open court on 30/07/2025. - /- (MANISH AGARWAL) (PRAKASH CHAND YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 30/07/2025
PK/Sr. Ps