Interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act

This ruling from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal addresses an appeal by M/s SMR Automotive Systems India Ltd. concerning assessment year 2013-14. The primary dispute revolves around transfer pricing adjustments made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), which significantly increased the assessee's income. The assessee challenges the AO's assessment and the TPO's determination of arm's length price, arguing that their own economic analysis was wrongly rejected and that the conditions for disregarding their pricing were not met.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “I-2” NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

I.T.A No.6614/Del/2017
Assessment Year:2013-14

M/s SMR Automotive Systems
India Ltd.,
F-7, Block-B-I, Mohan
Cooperative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi.
PAN No. AAFCS0021D
Appellant

Vs.

Addl. CIT
Special Range-8,
Delhi.
Respondent

Assessee by Sh. Ajit Tolani, Adv.
Revenue by Sh. Sunil Kumar, CIT DR

Date of hearing: 03.06.2021
Pronouncement on 03.06.2021

O R D E R

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, A.M.

1. With this appeal the assessee has challenged the validity of the order dated 28.09.2017 passed u/s 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act.

2. The grievance of the assessee read as under:

1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) erred in assessing the income of the Appellant at INR 23,80,23,611/- as against the returned income of INR 19,07,01,250/-.

2. That the order of the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer, “Ld. TPO”) passed u/s 92CA of the Act and the subsequent directions of the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as ‘Hon’ble Panel’) in respect of Assessment Year 2013-14, to the extent detrimental to the Appellant is bad in law and arbitrary,contrary to facts, law and circumstances of the case and liable to be quashed.

3. That in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. TPO/Ld. AO did not discharge his/her statutory onus by establishing that the conditions specified in clause (a) to (d) of Section 92C(3) of the Act have been satisfied before disregarding the arm’s length price determined by the Appellant and proceeding to determine the arm’s length price himself and the Hon’ble DRP erred by largely concurring with the views of the Ld. TPO/Ld. AO on the same.

4. That the Ld. TPO/Ld. AO/Hon’ble DRP, while making transfer pricing adjustment erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in rejection of the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in the Transfer Pricing documentation in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with rules, thereby confirming the economic analysis adopted by the Ld. TPO substantially.

5. The Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/Hon’ble DRP erred in enhancing the income of the Assessee by Rs. 4,73,22,361/- holding that the specified domestic transactions undertaken by Assessee do not satisfy the arm’s length principle envisaged under the Act and in doing so, have grossly erred in: 

To know more in details find the attachment file