M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(2), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2469/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 March 2020AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the Dispute Resolution Panel's (DRP) order to be cryptic and not a speaking order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the DRP for a fresh, reasoned decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an assessment order concerning Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments. The assessee sought exclusion of certain comparables and inclusion of others, along with objections on margin computation and adjustments.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the inadequacy of the DRP's order, which lacked proper reasoning on the Transfer Pricing adjustments proposed by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A. K. GARODIA & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri. Nageswar Rao, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 12.02.2020Pronounced: 13.03.2020

O R D E R

PER SHRI A.K.GARODIA, AM

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the Assessment Order dated 23.10.2019 for Assessment Year 2015 – 16 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the directions of DRP.

2.

The assessee has filed revised grounds dated 09.11.2019 having 13 grounds. In course of hearing, learned AR of the assessee submitted that Ground No. 1 and 2 are general and for these grounds, no separate adjudication is called for. We hold accordingly. 3. Thereafter, he submitted that as per the remaining grounds, the grievance of the assessee is about T P Adjustment and in this regard, the assessee is seeking exclusion of four comparable i.e. M/s Metro Shoes Limited, M/s VF Brands India Private limited, M/s Tommy Hilfiger IT(TP)A No. No.2469/Bang/2019 -2- Arvind Fashion Limited and Sreeleathers Limited and seeking inclusion of two comparables i.e. M/s Dindayal Jalan Textiles Limited and M/s Colorplus Fashions Limited and there are some objections about margin computation and some adjustments such as Risk Adjustment and adjustment in respect of custom duty paid on import of raw materials etc. The bench wanted to see the finding of DRP on these aspects and when the order of DRP was read, it was noticed that the order of DRP is cryptic and it is not a speaking and reasoned order. At this juncture, the bench made out this proposition that the matter has to go back to DRP for a fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order. In reply, both sides agreed to this proposition but this was the common request of both sides that all aspect of the matter about T P adjustment should be left open for a fresh decision by DRP. 4. In view of above discussion, we restore the entire T P Matter to DRP for a fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this decision, we make no comment on merit. 5. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 144C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →