TCA.725/2017 SOCOMEC INNOVATIVE POWER Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME Dated : 23/11/2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.11.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.725 & 726 of 2017
and
C.M.P.Nos.18259, 18260, 18262 & 18263 of 2017

M/s.Socomec Innovative Power
Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Formerly known as Socomec
UPS India Pvt. Ltd.
B1, 2nd Floor, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai. rep. by its
Director Mr.Mohan Jayaraman Appellant

Vs.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Corporate Circle-6(2),
Room No.705, Vanaparathy Block,
Aayakar Bhawan, Chennai. Respondent

Tax Case (Appeals) filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 26.4.2017 made in ITA No.617/Mds/2015 & 572/Mds/2016.

For Appellant : Mr.Himanshu Sinha for
Mr.M.V.Swaroop
For Respondent : Mr.J.Narayanasamy,
Senior Standing Counsel

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J)

The present Appeals have been filed by the Assessee M/s.Socomec Innovative Power Solutions Private Limited aggrieved by the order dated 26th April 2017 of the learned ITAT 'D' Bench Chennai, by which the learned Tribunal partly allowed the Appeals of the Assessee for statistical purposes and decided certain issues with regard to Transfer Pricing Adjustments in the case on hand.

2. The purported substantial questions of law raised by the Assessee in the present Appeal as given in the Memorandum of Appeal are quoted below:-

"i) Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that Berry Ratio is the MAM for computation of ALP, when the Appellant as a trader of UPS, sells the same without any value addition?

ii) Whether the impugned order of the ITAT is perverse on account of mutually exclusive findings in para 5 and 6 of the impugned order?

iii) Whether the impugned order of the ITAT is untenable in the eyes of law on account of its failure to adjudicate and give a finding on issue of (i) wrongful rejection of CUP as MAM by TPO/DRP; (ii) wrongful selection of comparables which are functionally not comparable to the Appellant for the purpose of application of TNMM by TPO/DRP and (iii) wrongful computation of berry ratio by considering “other income” as non-operating income?

To know more in details find the attachment file