DCIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S PROGRESSIVE TOOLS & COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., GHAZIABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO/TPO for fresh determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international transaction. This was done in line with a previous Tribunal order for assessment year 2005-06 in the assessee's own case.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,44,89,897/- made by the TPO/AO on account of royalty in respect of international transactions. The CIT(A) had deleted this addition, following his own orders for previous assessment years.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition on account of royalty in respect of international transactions was correctly deleted by the CIT(A). The core issue revolved around the determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of these transactions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : FRIDAY I-2 : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI
BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 DCIT, Vs Progressive Tools & Circle II, Components Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad. 8/3, Site-IV, Industrial Area, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad. PAN: AAECP1173G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri A. Srinivas Rao, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 22.02.2019 ORDER
PER R.K. PANDA, AM:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 23rd February, 2016 of the CIT(A), Muzafarnagar relating to assessment year 2006-07. The grounds of appeal
raised by the Revenue read as under:-
1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,44,89,897/- on account of royalty determined by the TPO/A.O. in respect of International Taxation.
2. The appellant craves leave to modify/amend or add any one or more ground of appeal.
3. Therefore, the order of the ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored.”
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of auto parts and components. It filed its return of income on 29.11.2006 declaring the total income at Rs.21,03,761/-. The case was reopened by issue of statutory notice. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3)/148 at a total income of Rs.1,97,80,545/-. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A), following his order for assessment years 2005-06 and 2007-08, deleted the various additions which are the subject matter of appeal by the Revenue.
The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, filed a copy of the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2005-06 and submitted that under identical circumstances the Tribunal has restored the issue to the file of the A.O./TPO for fresh determination of the ALP of the international transaction. Since the ld.CIT(A), while deciding the issue has followed his order for assessment year 2005- 06, therefore, he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer/TPO with similar directions. The ld. DR has no objection to restoring the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer/TPO in line with the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2005-06 in assessee’s own case. Since, in the instant case, the ld.CIT(A) while deleting the addition of Rs.1,44,89,897/- on account of royalty determined by the A.O./TPO in respect of international transaction has followed his order for assessment year 2005-06 and since the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2005-06 in order dated 10th March, 2017, has restored the issue to the file of A.O./TPO for fresh determination of the ALP of the international transaction, therefore, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the A.O./TPO for determination of the ALP of the international transaction for the impugned assessment year in the light of the directions of the Tribunal for assessment year 2005-06. The A.O./TPO shall decide the issue as per fact and law, after giving the assessee due opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026