EMC SOFTWARE AND SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 724/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 June 2022AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal had become infructuous due to the reduction of the TP adjustment to Nil. The Tribunal directed the AO to pass consequential orders based on the TPO's revised order.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an assessment order concerning the determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions with an Associate Enterprise. An addition of Rs.48,54,50,000/- was initially made, but later reduced to Nil by the TPO in an order giving effect to a prior direction.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's appeal challenging a transfer pricing adjustment survives when the adjustment has been reduced to Nil by the TPO. The procedural aspect of ensuring consequential orders are passed by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92,Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 92CA(5),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN & MS. PADMAVATHY S

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate
For Respondent: Shri. Gopinath, C.H.V. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 23.06.2022Pronounced: 24.06.2022

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. EMC Software and Services ITO, Vs. India Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 1(3), 112, 113, Akruti Sankul, 2nd Floor, A – Wing, Room No.205, Opp. Janata Sahakari Bank, PMT Commercial Complex, Sadashiv Peth, Tilak Road, Shankar-Seth Road, Pune – 411 030. Pune – 411 037. PAN : AABCT 0199 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Gopinath, C.H.V. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 23.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal by the assessee against the final Order of Assessment dated 25.07.2017 passed by the ITO, Ward – 1(3), Pune, under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) in relation to Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the addition on account of determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) u/s.92 of the Act, in respect of international transaction entered into with its Associate Enterprise (AE). The addition made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) was a total sum of Rs.48,54,50,000/- in the ITeS and the Software Development (SWD) services segment. The TPO passed the order giving effect to the directions of the DRP dated 29.01.2016.

3.

Thereafter, the assessee filed application under section 154 of the Act before the TPO pointing out certain mistakes in the order passed by the TPO giving effect to the directions of the DRP. On said application, the TPO passed an order dated 18.02.2019 under section 92CA(5) r.w.s. 154 of the Act in which the TP adjustment stood reduced to Nil.

4.

In view of the aforesaid order dated 18.2.2019, the grievance projected by the assessee in this appeal will not survive as the very addition made by the AO stand reduced to Nil consequent to the order dated 18.02.2019. The appeal of the assessee would therefore become infructuous.

5.

The learned Counsel for the assessee however submitted that a direction may be given to the AO to pass consequential orders based on the order of the TPO dated 18.02.2019. We are of the view that the AO should pass order in accordance with the order of the TPO dated 18.02.2019. We hold and direct accordingly. With these observations, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee as infructuous.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 92

All 434 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →