ACIT,CIRCLE-1(!), SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

13, wherein, the Assessing Officer had categorically asked the assessee to show cause why the additions as proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was not to be made in the assessment. Other issues were also raised in the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. It was the submission that the P a g e 3 | 17 M/s. TRL Krosaki

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

13, wherein, the Assessing Officer had categorically asked the assessee to show cause why the additions as proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was not to be made in the assessment. Other issues were also raised in the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. It was the submission that the P a g e 3 | 17 M/s. TRL Krosaki

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1),, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

13, wherein, the Assessing Officer had categorically asked the assessee to show cause why the additions as proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was not to be made in the assessment. Other issues were also raised in the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. It was the submission that the P a g e 3 | 17 M/s. TRL Krosaki

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARASUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

13, wherein, the Assessing Officer had categorically asked the assessee to show cause why the additions as proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was not to be made in the assessment. Other issues were also raised in the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. It was the submission that the P a g e 3 | 17 M/s. TRL Krosaki

ACIT(CIRCLE-1(1),, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

13, wherein, the Assessing Officer had categorically asked the assessee to show cause why the additions as proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was not to be made in the assessment. Other issues were also raised in the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. It was the submission that the P a g e 3 | 17 M/s. TRL Krosaki

ITO, ANGUL WARD, , ANGUL vs. M/S. NCC SMASL JRT(JV),, ANGUL

transfer the entire sale proceeds to AE to ensure lowest sale price to MC. The assessee failed to justify the rationality of the approach since, the ultimate sale price to MCL is not linked with the cost of either assessee or AE in the entire scheme of arrangement. Further, the assessee's contention that the income of the assessee

ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL vs. NCC-SMASL-JRT(JV), ANGUL

transfer the entire sale proceeds to AE to ensure lowest sale price to MC. The assessee failed to justify the rationality of the approach since, the ultimate sale price to MCL is not linked with the cost of either assessee or AE in the entire scheme of arrangement. Further, the assessee's contention that the income of the assessee