Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5179 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
16-02-2022
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2015-2016
Appeal Filed On
20-12-2021
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. No. 152/Bang/2021 (in IT(TP)A No. 2266/Bang/2019) Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s. Swiss Re Global Business Solution India Pvt. Ltd. (previously known as Swiss Re Shared Services India Pvt. Ltd.), 2 nd to 5 th Floor, Fairwinds Building, Embassy Golf Links Business Park, Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 071. PAN: AAECS8786L Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 11-02-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 17-02-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by assessee against the order passed by this Tribunal dated 20.04.2020 in IT(TP)A No. 2266/Bang/2019. 2. The Ld.AR submitted that this Tribunal has not adjudicated the transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest on outstanding receivables raised in Grounds 10-12. It was submitted that assessee had filed detailed submissions which Page 2 of 4 M.P. No. 152/Bang/2021 (in IT(TP)A No. 2266/Bang/2019) was enclosed in the paper book, however these grounds were not adjudicated. 3. On the contrary, the Ld.DR referred to para 15 of the said order wherein the specific grounds that was considered and argued before this Tribunal by assessee has been categorically mentioned. He thus submitted that this issue was not argued by the Ld.AR before this Tribunal. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 4. Admittedly, para 15 of the impugned order reads as under. “15. It has been submitted by Ld.AR that assessee wishes to restrict its arguments against certain filter applied by Ld.TPO for exclusion of 1 comparable raised in ground 6 (a) (ii) and 1 comparable in additional ground for functional dissimilarity, and inclusion of 2 comparables for functional similarities in 6 (b) (ii) and (iv). It has been submitted by Ld.AR that in respect of other comparables/grounds, liberty may be granted for being considered in an appropriate situation. Based upon above submission, we restrict ourselves only to Ground 6(a)(ii), Ground 6(b)(ii) & (iv) and comparability of Addl. Ground SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., raised in Ground 6(a)(ii) and Additional comparable.” 5. We have cross checked the said noting with the log book and found that assessee did not argue on the issue of computation of notional interest on outstanding receivables. Under such circumstances, we are unable to agree with the submissions made by the assessee in the Miscellaneous Petition. Merely because assessee filed voluminous paper book which contained submissions on the issue raised in grounds 10-12, does not imply that the said issue has been argued. 6. We also refer to the note mentioned by assessee representative in the grounds of appeal in the Appeal set, wherein there is acceptance by the Ld.AR of the relevant issues Page 3 of 4 M.P. No. 152/Bang/2021 (in IT(TP)A No. 2266/Bang/2019) considered and mentioned in para 15 are only being argued by assessee. The scanned copy of the noting made by the Ld.AR on the grounds of appeal is annexed herewith. Page 4 of 4 M.P. No. 152/Bang/2021 (in IT(TP)A No. 2266/Bang/2019) The above noting is very clear on what issues were argued that all other grounds assessee reserves its right to argue. Under such circumstances, the present M.P. do not have legs to stand and accordingly the same is dismissed. 7. However, we may mention at this juncture that this Tribunal in order dated 20.04.2020 directed the Ld.AO/TPO to grant WCA. As there is no dispute on the MAM to be TNMM, no prejudice is caused to assessee by not arguing the grounds relating to computation of notional interest on outstanding receivables. In the result, the Miscellaneous Petition filed by assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17 th February, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 17 th February, 2022. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore
