Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No.71, Sector-32, Circle-3(1), Institutional Area, Gurgaon. Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccn5100F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Shri S.S. Tomar & Shri Ankit Shahni, Advocates Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhalry, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 9Th October, 2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The It Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Belongs To Nikon Group Of Cases Which Is Involved In A Broad Spectrum Of Business Centred On Precision Equipment, Imaging Products, Instruments & Other Business. The Activities Of The Nikon Group Are Carried Out Through The Following Divisions:- I) Precision Equipment Business, Ii) Imaging Products Business, Iii) Instruments Business, Iv) Other Businesses. 3. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 24.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.66,47,37,700/-. The Assessing Officer Made A Reference U/S 92Ca(1) Of The It Act To Determine The Arm’S Length Price Of The International Transactions Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Aes During The F.Y. 2013-14. The Tpo, During The Course Of Tp Assessment Proceedings Observed That The Assessee Has Entered Into The Following International Transactions During The Year:- No. Nature Of Transaction Value (Inr) Method Applied 1. Purchase Of Goods, Promotional & 6,571,207,639 Rpm Other Supplies 2 Purchase Of Fixed Assets 7,049,548 Tnmm 3 Service Income 30,717,853 Tnmm 4 Warranty Reimbursements Received 69,937,244 Cup 5. Cost Reimbursements Received 2,619,750 Cup 6 Cost Reimbursements Paid 5,628,706 Cup

…permit any additional ground of appeal if, in its discretion, and for good reason, it thinks it necessary or permissible to do so. (See also in this connection a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Western Rolling Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. [1985] 156 ITR 54. 39. In view of the above decisions, it is quite clear that the Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to permit additional grounds to be raised before it even though these may not arise from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, so long as these grounds are in respect of the subject-matter of the entire tax proceedings.” 20. We find th…