The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore v. UE Development India Pvt. Ltd
[Citation -2019-LL-0920-80]

Citation 2019-LL-0920-80
Appellant Name The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore
Respondent Name UE Development India Pvt. Ltd.
Court ITAT-Bangalore
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 20/09/2019
Assessment Year 2010-11
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags tp adjustment • alp adjustment
Bot Summary: PAN: AAACU5091N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri Sanjay Mehta, CA Revenue by Shri K.R. Narayanan, JCIT Date of hearing 22.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement 20.09.2019 ORDER Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the revenue and the same is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) in para 5 of his order that the appeal of the revenue against the order of ld. The appeal of the Revenue against the order of the CIT for A.Y 2009-10 was dismissed by the ITAT in ITA No 374/Bang/2014 vide order dated 05-05-2017 relying on their earlier decision in case of the assessee for AY 2004-05 to 2007-08 dated 30-08-2013. The order of the AO/TPO for the AY 2008-09 has also been struck down by the ITAT vide its order dated 14-06-2017 holding that ---In this factual view of the matter, and following the aforesaid decisions of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal(supra), we hold that where the TPO has accepted the transaction to be at ALP at the hands of the AE , then he cannot take a different stand in the case of the other party to the transaction, i.e. the assessee therein in the case on hand and accordingly set aside the orders of the AO/TPO on this issue. The appellant has also filed a copy of the assessment order under section 143(3) dated 15-03-2013 in the case of the AE, United Engineers Berhard for AY 2010-11 where no adjustment has been made by the AO. Under the above facts and circumstances, respectfully following the decisions of the ITAT in the case of the appellant, the TP adjustment effected by the AO/TPO is struck down. The Tribunal order in ITA No. 1895/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 4 assessee s own case for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2007-08 is approved by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in its four judgments in ITA Nos. DR of revenue could not point out any difference in facts in present year and in these four years for which the tribunal order is approved by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, we decline to interfere in the order of ld.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1895/Bang/2017 Assessment Year 2010-11 M/s. UE Development Deputy India Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner of 116, 702, 7th Floor, Income Tax, Vs. Pride Hulkul Building, Circle 7(1)(1), Lalbagh Road, Bangalore. Bangalore 560 027. PAN: AAACU5091N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri Sanjay Mehta, CA Revenue by Shri K.R. Narayanan, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing 22.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement 20.09.2019 ORDER Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by revenue and same is directed against order of ld. CIT(A)-7, Bangalore dated 25.07.2017 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. grounds raised by revenue are as under. 1. order of learned CIT (A) is opposed to law and facts of case. 2. "Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, CIT(A) is right in law in holding that in mirror transactions, ALP adjustments cannot be done, i.e., if one transaction is treated as at Arm's length, no adjustment can be done on other related corresponding transaction of AE without appreciating that this stand is against provisions of section 92(3) of I. T Act, 1961"? 3. For this and other grounds that may be urged at time of hearing, it is prayed that order of CIT(A) in so far as it relates to above grounds may he reversed and that of Assessing Officer may be restored. 4. appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete any of grounds mentioned above. 3. ld. DR of revenue supported assessment order whereas ld. AR of assessee supported order of ld. CIT(A). He also submitted that it is noted by ld. CIT(A) in para 5 of his order that appeal of revenue against order of ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2009-10 was dismissed ITA No. 1895/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 4 by Tribunal in IT(TP)A No. 347/Bang/2014 dated 05.05.2017 relying on earlier decision in case of assessee for Assessment Years 2004- 05 to 2007-08 dated 30.08.2013. He submitted that relevant Tribunal order are available on pages 165 to 181 being Tribunal order in assessee s own case for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2007-08 in IT(TP)A Nos. 1104/Bang/2011, 284 to 286/Bang/2012 dated 30.08.2013 and subsequent orders are also available on pages 182 to 195 for Assessment Year 2008-09, pages 196 to 203 for Assessment Year 2009-10. He submitted that facts of present year are similar and hence, order of ld. CIT(A) should be confirmed. It was also submitted by him that in ITA No. 52 to 55/2014 all dated 12.07.2018, Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has confirmed all four Tribunal orders in assessee s own case for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2007 08 and he submitted copy of these four judgments. 4. We have considered rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce para nos. 5 and 6 of order of ld. CIT(A). 5. appeal of Revenue against order of CIT (A) for A.Y 2009-10 was dismissed by ITAT in ITA No 374/Bang/2014 vide order dated 05-05-2017 relying on their earlier decision in case of assessee for AY 2004-05 to 2007-08 dated 30-08-2013. Similarly, order of AO/TPO for AY 2008-09 has also been struck down by ITAT vide its order dated 14-06-2017 holding that ------In this factual view of matter, and following aforesaid decisions of co-ordinate benches of Tribunal(supra), we hold that where TPO has accepted transaction to be at ALP at hands of AE , then he cannot take different stand in case of other party to transaction, i.e. assessee therein in case on hand and accordingly set aside orders of AO/TPO on this issue. Consequently, grounds raised by assessee are allowed as indicated above." 6. facts in case for current year remain similar as earlier years. appellant has also filed copy of assessment order under section 143(3) dated 15-03-2013 in case of AE, United Engineers (Malaysia) Berhard for AY 2010-11 where no adjustment has been made by AO. Under above facts and circumstances, respectfully following decisions of ITAT (supra) in case of appellant, TP adjustment effected by AO/TPO is struck down. 5. From above paras reproduced from order of ld. CIT(A), it is seen that his decision is on basis of earlier Tribunal orders in assessee s own case for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2009-10. No difference in facts could be pointed out by ld. DR of revenue in present year. Tribunal order in ITA No. 1895/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 4 assessee s own case for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2007-08 is approved by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in its four judgments in ITA Nos. 52 to 55/2014 all dated 12.07.2018. Before us, ld. DR of revenue had placed reliance on Tribunal order rendered in case of Filtrex Technologies (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT as reported in [2018] 93 taxmann.com 301 (Bangalore Trib.). He submitted copy of this Tribunal order and it was pointed out before us that in para 16 of this Tribunal order, Tribunal has noted about various Tribunal orders rendered in case of UE Development India (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT in IT(TP)A No. 1104/Bang/2011 and IT(TP)A Nos. 284 to 286/Bang/2012 for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2004-05 to 2006-07. After this, in para 29 of Tribunal order, Tribunal has restored matter back to file of TPO for fresh decision. On perusal of this tribunal order rendered in case of Filtrex Technologies (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (Supra), it is seen that in that case, tribunal has decided issue by following judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court rendered in case of CIT vs. Cushman & Wakefield India (P) Ltd. as reported in 46 Taxman.com 317 and order of Special Bench of tribunal rendered in case of Instrumentarium Corporation Ltd. Vs ADIT as reported in 71 Taxman.com 193 but in present case, Tribunal order in assessee s own case for A. Ys. 2004 05 to 2007 08 has been approved by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court as per its four Judgments all dated 12.07.2018 which is after date of this Tribunal order i.e. 11.04.2018 and in view of this fact that ld. DR of revenue could not point out any difference in facts in present year and in these four years for which tribunal order is approved by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, we decline to interfere in order of ld. CIT(A) by respectfully following these four judgments of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in assessee s own case for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2007-08. 6. In result, appeal filed by revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on date mentioned on caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated, 20th September, 2019. ITA No. 1895/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 4 Copy to: 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore v. UE Development India Pvt. Ltd
Report Error