ROLTA INDIA LTD., MUMBAI V. DY CIT-CC-1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 763/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1912 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

म ु ंबई ठ “जे ” , ! ं !म.ब ग ेश , े% े म& IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ं. 763/म ु ं/20 21 ( +. . 2016-17) ITA NO.763/MUM/2021(A.Y.2016-17) Rolta India Ltd. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22 nd Street, MIDC, Marol, Andheri(East), Mumbai 400 093 PAN: AAACR-2711-G ...... - /Appellant ब+ म Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.1(1), Room No.903, 9 th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Annexure, MK Road, Mumbai 400 020 . ..... . / /Respondent - 0 / Appellant by : Shri Shekhar Gupta . / 0 /Respondent by : Ms. Vatsalla Jha ु + ई 1 / / Date of hearing : 29/06/2022 234 1 / / Date of pronouncement : 29/06/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 26/03/2021 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act']. 2. Shri Shekhar Gupta appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that he is not pressing ground No.1 of the appeal. 2 ITA NO.763/MUM/2021(A.Y.2016-17) 2.1 In respect of ground No.2 assailing Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs.93.33 crores on account of corporate guarantee commission, the Id.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case in the preceding assessment years. The Id. Authorized Representative of the assessee furnished copy of the Tribunal order in ITA No. 882/Mum/2017 for assessment year 2012-13 decided on 07/09/2018 and the order of Tribunal in ITA No. 5720/Mum/2017 for assessment year 2013-14 decided on 29/08/2019. 3. Ms.Vatsalaa Jha representing the Department vehemently defended the findings of Assessing Officer on the issue of T.P adjustment en corporate guarantee commission. However, the Id. Departmental Representative fairly admitted that the Tribunal in assessee's own case in preceding assessment years has considered this issue. 4. Both sides heard. The assessee in appeal has raised two grounds. In ground No.l of appeal, the assessee has assailed the findings of Assessing Officer in holding corporate guarantee commission as international transaction. The Id.Authorized Representative of the assessee made a statement at Bar that he is not pressing ground No.1. In view of the statement made by Id.Authorized Representative of the assessee, ground No.1 is dismissed as not pressed. 5. In ground No.2, the assessee has assailed T.P adjustment of Rs.93,33,78,654/- in respect of corporate guarantee commission. We find that the TPO has made adjustment by charging corporate guarantee commission @1.418%, We find that this issue was in dispute in assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14. In assessment year 2012-13 the CIT(A) following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Everest 3 ITA NO.763/MUM/2021(A.Y.2016-17) Kento Cylinders Ltd., 378 ITR 57 restricted the corporate guarantee commission rate to 0.5%. Against the findings of the CIT(A), the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.882/Mum/2017 (supra). The Co-ordinate Bench upheld the findings of CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of Revenue. Similarly, in the assessment year 2013-14, the C1T(A) restricted the corporate guarantee commission rate to 0.5%. The Revenue agitated the issue before the Tribunal in ITA No.5720/Mum/2017(supra). The Tribunal following its earlier order in assessee's own case for assessment year 2012-13 dismissed this ground of appeal. 6. In the impugned assessment year since, the facts are identical to assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14, we see no reason to take a different view. Consequently, ground No.2 of the appeal is allowed for parity of reasons. 7. In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 29th day of June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- ( M. BALAGANESH ) (VIKAS AWASTHY) े% /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER म ु ंबई/ Mumbai, 5 + ं /Dated 29/06/2022 Vm, Sr. PS(O/S) 4 ITA NO.763/MUM/2021(A.Y.2016-17) े Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. -/The Appellant , 2. . / / The Respondent. 3. ु 6/( )/ The CIT(A)- 4. ु 6/ CIT 5. 7 ग . / + , . . ., म ु बंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग 89 : ; /Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai