AI Insights
The case involves the Income Tax Department (Revenue) filing a Miscellaneous Application against M/s. Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd., seeking corrections in a previous Tribunal order concerning transfer pricing adjustments and certain corporate disallowances. The Revenue pointed out alleged mistakes in the Tribunal's earlier decision, including contradictory directions and typographical errors. The Tribunal reviewed these claims, corrected a typographical error, and rejected the other claims, maintaining that the original decision was correct and did not contain the alleged mistakes.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136545 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
27-08-2023
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
PartlyAllowed
Bench Allotted
J
Next Hearing Date
24-08-2023
Assessment Year
2014-2015
Appeal Filed On
30-03-2023
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “J” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) M.A. No. 277/Mum/2023 in I.T.A. No. 7159/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) DCIT-7(1)(1) Room 126 1 st Floor Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. Vs. M/s. Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd. 5 th Foor, Mahindra Towers, Worli Mumbai-400 018. PAN : AAACW9691A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Department by Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha Date of Hearing 25.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 28.08.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The Revenue has filed this Miscellaneous Application submitting that there are mistakes apparent from record in the order dated 3.8.2022 passed in ITA No. 7159/Mum/2018. 2. The first error pointed out by the revenue is related to the issue pertaining to Transfer pricing adjustment. Accordingly, to revenue, there are four mistakes apparent from record in the decision rendered by the Tribunal on this issue. 3. The first mistake pointed out by the Revenue is that the Tribunal has issued two different directions in paragraph 2 at page No. 21 of its order in respect of transfer pricing adjustments. It is submitted that the ITAT has M/s. Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd. 2 deleted the transfer pricing adjustment in the earlier part of the paragraph, but, in the subsequent line, it has set aside the matter to the file of the TPO. According to the revenue, the bench has rendered contradictory decision in respect of the same issue. 3.1 We heard the parties and perused the record. A careful perusal of the order would show that the Tribunal has restored the matter to the TPO to implement the findings given by it. Thus, in our view, there is no contradiction in the decision, as inferred by the Revenue. Accordingly we reject this prayer of the revenue. 4. The next mistake pointed out by the Revenue is related to the typographical error in paragraph 7.1 at page 19 of the order. We agree that there is typographical error in the above said paragraph. 4.1 Accordingly, in the fourth line of paragraph 7.1, the words “or merging” shall be substituted by the words “of margin”. 5. The third mistake pointed out by the Revenue is that there is a syntax error in paragraph 1 at page No. 21. We have read the said paragraph and we do not find any syntax error as alleged by the revenue. Accordingly we reject this prayer of the revenue. 6. The fourth mistake pointed out by the Revenue is that in page no.20 of the order, at 7 th line, the Tribunal has expressed phrase “and was transaction of rendering actual services to AE”. It is the case of the revenue that the above said phrase is not fathomable and does not appear to relate to the assessee. M/s. Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd. 3 6.1 We heard the parties on this point. Both the parties could not explain the mistake. Hence, we are unable to understand as to how the revenue is treating this as a mistake. Accordingly we reject this prayer. 7. The Revenue has also submitted that there are mistakes in respect of corporate issues related to the disallowance of “advertisement and sales promotion expenses” and disallowance of “legal and professional expenses”. We noticed that the year under consideration A.Y. 2014-15 and alleged mistake is pointed out by the revenue on the basis of the decision taken in A.Y. 2016-17 by the Tribunal. The Learned AR submitted that there is no parity of the facts between A.Y. 2014-15 and 2016-17 and accordingly submitted that the revenue could not have placed reliance on the decision rendered in A.Y. 2016-17 for pointing out the alleged mistakes. 7.1 We agree with the submission of learned AR. In any case the Tribunal has taken the view in respect of the above said two additions and the same cannot be rectified under section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we reject this prayer of the revenue. 8. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in on 28.08.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Rahul Chaudhary) (B.R. Baskaran) Judicial Member Accountant Member Mumbai.; Dated : 28/08/2023 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) M/s. Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd. 4 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai. 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai
Mehul