Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore V. AMC Cookware (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

MA 67/BANG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application by the Revenue seeking to correct an alleged mistake in the Tribunal's order dated 07.09.2022 concerning the Assessment Year 2017-18. The original Tribunal order had mistakenly directed the AO/TPO to adopt the Resale Price Method (RPM) as the most appropriate method for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international transaction, contrary to the general directions given in a previous case for Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue argued that this specific direction hindered the AO/TPO from conducting a fresh Transfer Pricing analysis. The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake and corrected it, allowing the AO/TPO the discretion to choose the method for determining ALP.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124551 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.67/Bang/2023 (in IT(TP)A No.429/Bang/2022) Assessment Year : 2017-18 The ITO, Ward – 1(1)(1), Bengaluru. Vs. M/s. AMC Cookware (India) Pvt. Ltd., No.1180, 12 th B Main, 1 st Cross, HAL 2 nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru – 560 008. PAN : AACCA 4970 G APPLICANTRESPONDENT Revenue by:ShriSankar Ganesh K, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Assessee by :Ms. Susan Mathew, CA Date of hearing:16.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement:16.06.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Judicial Member: This Miscellaneous Application (MA) at the instance of the Revenue is seeking to correct certain mistakes which have crept in Tribunal order dated 07.09.2022 in IT(TP)A No.429/Bang/2022. The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. 2. The learned DR submitted that for the relevant Assessment Year, the Tribunal, following its earlier order in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2012-13, had remitted the matter to the TPO for fresh consideration. However, the Tribunal, at para 10 of the order, had by mistake, directed the AO/TPO to MA No.67/Bang/2023 (in IT(TP)A No.429/Bang/2022) Page 2 of 3 adopt Resale Price Method (RPM) as the most appropriate method (MAM) for determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the international transaction of the assessee. It was submitted by the learned DR that for Assessment Year 2012-13, the Tribunal remitted the issue for fresh consideration without any specific directions to adopt RPM as the MAM. Therefore, the learned DR submitted that the TPO could not conduct fresh Transfer Pricing (TP) analysis in view of the specific directions of the Tribunal for the relevant Assessment Year. Therefore, it was submitted by the learned DR that the Tribunal order for Assessment Year 2017-18 may be modified and matter may be remitted to the TPO dehors the specific directions to adopt RPM as the MAM. 3. The learned AR, by referring to the Tribunal Order, submitted that there is no specific direction per se to adopt RPM as the MAM for the determination of ALP of the international transaction. Hence, it was stated that there is no mistake apparent on record which warrants interference under section 254(2) of the Act. 4. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. The Tribunal, for the relevant Assessment Year, had followed its earlier order in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2012-13 and remitted the matter to the AO/TPO. In the Tribunal order for Assessment Year 2012-13, there are only general directions and AO/TPO is given freedom to adopt RPM or TNMM after examining the facts. However, for the Assessment Year 2017-18, at para 10, the Tribunal had specifically directed the AO/TPO to adopt RPM as the MAM for the determination of the ALP of the international transaction. We are of the view that specific directions by the Tribunal to adopt RPM as the MAM is a mistake apparent on record warranting our interference under section 254(2) of the Act. Therefore, the AO/TPO is directed to conduct fresh TP study as per the directions MA No.67/Bang/2023 (in IT(TP)A No.429/Bang/2022) Page 3 of 3 of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2012-13. It is ordered accordingly. With these observations, the MA filed by the Department is disposed off. 5.In the result, the MA filed by the Revenue is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore. Dated: 16.06.2023. /NS/* Copy to: 1.Appellants2.Respondent 3.CIT4.CIT(A) 5.DR, ITAT, Bangalore.6.Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.