HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD I.T.T.A.No.374 of 2019 JUDGMENT: (Per MSR,J) This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging order dt.15-02-2019 in I.T.A.No.2022/Hyd/2017 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A, Hyderabad in relation to respondent-assessee for year 2013-14. 2. respondent-company is engaged in business of manufacturing high performance flexible disc coupling for application in critical turbo machinery. 3. It filed its return of income for assessment year 2013-14 on 21-09-2013 declaring income of Rs.54,15,52,720/- and showed book profit of Rs.54,28,24,910/-. 4. During assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961, Assessment Officer (A.O.) observed that assessee has entered into international transactions with its A.E. and that determination of arm s length price of international transaction was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO); and TPO vide proceedings dt.31-10-2016, proposed adjustment of Rs.2,72,47,432/- on account of royalty payment. He held that assessee has failed to prove benefit obtained by him by use of latest technology. 5. In accordance with proposed adjustment, A.O. passed draft assessment order and assessee preferred its objections before D.R.T. 2 MSR,J & TA,J I.T.T.A.No.374 of 2019 6. D.R.T. confirmed T.P.O s order and in accordance therewith, final assessment order was passed. 7. assessee then filed appeal before Tribunal. 8. It was contended before Tribunal by assessee that issue of determination of royalty payment at Rs.nil by using benefit test was considered by Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in case of M/s.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT1 and Tribunal, in that case, had followed other decisions of Delhi High Court and observed that benefit test cannot be adopted and royalty payment cannot be determined at Rs.nil. Other decisions were also relied upon. It was contended that adjustment made in final assessment order must be deleted. department representative however supported orders of Court below. 9. By order dt.15-02-2019, Tribunal gave finding that respondent-assessee has used technologies supplied by its A.E. in its manufacturing process and for such use of technology, it has paid royalty. It then referred to decisions of Coordinate Bench of Tribunal at Bangalore. In similar case, Tribunal had remitted issue to file of A.O. to determinate arm s length price of royalty by adopting TNMM after giving fair opportunity for hearing. Thus, Tribunal has only remitted matter back to file of AO/TPO and did not adjudicate anything in appeal and it allowed appeal only for statistical purpose. 1 2015 (1) TMI 921 3 MSR,J & TA,J I.T.T.A.No.374 of 2019 10. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to admit this appeal since after remand order passed by Tribunal, matter will again be gone into as per its directions and fresh assessment would be made after complying principles of natural justice. 11. Accordingly, appeal fails land is dismissed. No costs. 12. As sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD Date: 29-01-2020 kvr Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 v. Euroflex Transmissions India Private Limited