What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal rectified the previous order by correcting the figures for the addition of IT service costs and corporate guarantee fees. The corrected amounts reflect the total additions including the arm's length price adjustments.

The assessee pointed out typographical errors in a previous ITAT order regarding figures related to adjustments for IT service costs and corporate guarantee fees. The Tribunal reviewed the records and agreed that these were mistakes apparent from the record.

What were the issues?

Whether there were mistakes apparent from the record in the ITAT's previous order and if these needed rectification.

At & S Austria Technologie &… vs DCIT | ITAT Kolkata 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Appellant: Smt. Rituparna Sinha, FCA

For Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, CIT(DR)

Hearing: 04/11/2019Pronounced: 31/01/2020

The assessee, by way of a letter dated 23rdMarch, 2020 has sought to point out that a mistake apparent from record has crept in the order of the Tribunal dated 31.01.2020. The assessee,brought to our notice that there are somemistakes in writing a few figures inthe order dated 31.01.2020, in 2013–14. These are only typographical mistakes.

On perusal of the records available before us, we find that the aforesaid typographical mistakes, as pointed out by the assessee, is apparent on record which needs rectification. Consequently, we proceed to rectify the same as follows.

Paragraph No. 15, at page No. 19 of the order of the Tribunal stated as follows:

AT & S Austria Technologie & Systemtechnik Aktiongesellschaft

“15. Ground No. 4 to 9 are directed against the arm’s length price adjustment of INR 9,48,760/- made by the AO in respect of recovery of information technology (‘IT’) service cost from AT&S India.”.

3 (a). Paragraph No. 15,at page No. 19 of the order of the Tribunal should be read as follows: “15. Ground No. 4 to 9 are directed against the addition of INR 3,67,51,029/- (including the ALP adjustment of INR 9,48,760/-) made by the AO in respect of recovery of information technology (‘IT’) service cost from A T&S India.”

3(b). Paragraph No. 21, vide page No. 24 of the order of the Tribunal stated as follows: “The payment made by AT&S India to the assessee is in the nature of reimbursement of cost, therefore we delete the addition of Rs.9,48,760/-.”

3(c ). Paragraph No. 21, vide page No. 24 of the order of the Tribunal should read as follows: “The payment made by AT&S India to the assessee is in the nature of reimbursement of cost, therefore we delete the addition of Rs. 3,67,51,029/- (including the ALP adjustment of Rs. 9,48,760/-). ”

Paragraph No.23,at page No.24 of the order of the Tribunal stated as follows: “23. Ground No. 12 to 15 are directed against the arm’s length price adjustment of INR 9,72,959/- made by the TPO/DRP in respect of receipt of corporate guarantee fee from A T&S India.”

4(a). Paragraph No.23,at page No.24 of the order of the Tribunal, should be read as follows: “23. Ground No. 12 to 15 are directed against the addition of Rs. 46,16,719/- (including the ALP adjustment of Rs. 9,72,959/-) made by the TPO/AO in respect ofreceipt ofcorporate guarantee fee from AT&S India.”

AT & S Austria Technologie & Systemtechnik Aktiongesellschaft 4(b). Paragraph No. 27, vide page No. 29 of the order of the Tribunal stated as follows: “Respectfully following the above binding precedent, we delete the addition of Rs.9,72,959/-.”

4(c). Paragraph No. 27, vide page No. 29 of the order of the Tribunal should read as follows: “Respectfully following the above binding precedent, we delete the addition of Rs. 46,16,719/-, (including the ALP adjustment of Rs. 9,72,959/-).”

The order of the Tribunal dated 31.01.2020, in 2013–14 be treated as amended to this extent, as mentioned above.

AT & S AUSTRIA TECHNOLOGIE & SYSTEMTECHNIK AKTIONGESELLSCHAFT, AUSTRIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments