Ina major setback to M/s Akzonobel India Private Limited, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal and held that every Assessment Year is a separate unit which is governed by its own peculiar facts.
The Appellant challenged the order of the ITAT wherein the Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs.1,94,65,250/- in respect of the international transaction pertaining to receipt of business support services and the arm’s length price of the said transaction at ‘Nil’.
Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that “Upon a perusal of the paper book, this Court finds that all the three authorities below have given concurrent findings of fact that the Appellant had failed to furnish evidence to demonstrate that administrative services were actually rendered by the AE and the assessee had received such services. In fact, the ITAT has noted in the impugned order “….On a specific query made by the Bench to demonstrate the receipt of services from AE through cogent evidence, including, any communication with the AE, learned counsel for the assessee expressed his inability to furnish any evidence and repeated his submission to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer for enabling the assessee to furnish evidence, if any.”
Holding that every Assessment Year is a separate unit which is governed by its own peculiar facts, the Court observed that “the ITAT in the impugned order has clarified that its decision would not prejudice the assessee’s claim in any other assessment year, as it has to be decided based on the evidences produced to establish the claim of receipt of services from AE.”
“Further , this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. Make My Trip India (P) Ltd., (2017) 87 taxmann.com 284 (Delhi) has held that difference of opinion between the parties, as to the appropriateness of one or the other methods to calculate arm’s length price, cannot per se be a ground for intereference and the appropriateness of the method unless shown to be contrary to the Rules specially 10B and 10C are hardly issues that ought to be gone into under Section 260A of the Act,” the Court said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanPremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
