INVITROGEN BIOSERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 248/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 April 2021AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted a difference in the figure used by the Assessing Officer (AO) for income computation. It directed the assessee to provide all relevant details to the AO, who was instructed to verify them and dispose of the pending rectification petition. The ground raised was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the final assessment order. The primary ground for appeal concerned an alleged error in the computation of the operating margin of a comparable company, GVK Biosciences Ltd., by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The assessee had filed a rectification petition before the TPO which was rejected.

What were the issues?

Whether the TPO erred in computing the operating margin of a comparable company due to a factual error, and whether the AO should dispose of a pending rectification petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, C.A
For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee is against final assessment order dated 18/12/2014 passed under section 143 (3) read with section 144C of the Act. 2. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that only Ground No.4 is to be adjudicated with that reads as under:

Page 2 of 4 IT(TP)A No.248/Bang/2015

1.

4) That the Ld. TPO and the 14. Panel erred in not recttjing the operating margin computation of one of the comparable namely GVK Biosciences Ltd. though the correct computation and financial statements of the comparables was placed on record before the DRP. The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. TPO) has erred in computing the margin of 0 VK Biosciences Ltd. through a miniscule error which is a clear mistake apparent from record. The Appellant had filed a rectification petition u/s 154 before the Ld. TPO (Refer Page 101-103 of the paper book) but his good office had arbitrarily rejected the rectification application. Through this letter, the Appellant is submitting the comparison of the margin as computed by the Ld. TPO uis-â-vis the correct margin.

3.

The Ld.AR placed reliance on page 431 of the paper book to prove that a wrong figure has entered into the computation carried out by Ld.AO for ascertaining the income taxable in the hands of the assessee. He submitted that rectification application dated 02/12/2014 is pending on the same before the Ld.AO which is not yet been disposed off. 3. Admittedly, both sides submitted that the issue needs to be remanded to the Ld. AO.

4.

We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. We note that there is a difference in the figure considered by the Ld. AO for computing the income in the hands of assessee. We direct assessee to file all relevant details before the Ld. AO in support of its claim. The Ld. AO shall verify the details and dispose of the petition filed u/s 154 which is long pending since 2014. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Page 3 of 4 IT(TP)A No.248/Bang/2015

6.

Nothing has been argued by assessee in respect of the other grounds and accordingly they are dismissed. In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th April, 2021 Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 15th April, 2021. /Vms/ Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 6. Guard file By order

More judgments on Section 144C

All 3,699 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →