MIKUNI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEEMRANA, BEHROR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR

MA 28/JPR/2025

AI Insights

Mikuni India Pvt. Ltd. filed a miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the Tribunal's earlier decision dated 23.01.2025, which dismissed their appeal against the transfer pricing adjustments and additions to interest income for the assessment year 2016-17. The Tribunal had previously upheld the adjustments made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the subsequent income revisions by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and materials presented by both parties and concluded that the original decision did not contain any mistakes apparent from the record, leading to the dismissal of the miscellaneous application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711615 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GORAV AVASTHI
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY VOHRA; THROUGH
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 92B

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJh ujsUn zdqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM MA No. 28/JPR/2025 (Arsing out of IT (TP) A No. 1/JPR/2021) fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mikuni India Private Limited, SP2-19(A), 20 & 21(A) New Industrial Complex, (Majarakath, Meenrana, Behror, Neemrana, Alwar-301705. v. The DCIT, Circle-1, Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM7409R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Advocate (through V.C.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 17/07/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 21/07/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . This order is to dispose of miscellaneous application filed by the assessee u/s 254(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), as regards order dated 23.01.2025, passed by this Bench in IT(TP)A No. 1/JPR/2021. 2. Arguments heard. File perused. Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No. 28/JPR/2025 Mikuni India Pvt. Ltd., Alwar. 3. Vide judgment dated 23.01.2025, the above said IT(TP) filed by the assessee-applicant was dismissed, finding no merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee-appellant. 4. The assessee filed the above said appeal, challenging order dated passed by the Assessing Officer, National e-assessment Centre, Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2016-17. Dispute between the parties resolved around: (i) addition of Rs. 6,93,04,550/- on account of transfer pricing adjustment, and (ii) addition of Rs. 4,18,312/-, on account of interest income. 5. The Assessing Officer, vide impugned assessment order, had assessed total income of the assessee company at Rs. 8,43,760/-. 6. As per case of the department, during the previous year, relevant to assessment year 2016-17, the assessee was stated to have entered into ‘international transactions’ and ‘ specified domestic transaction’ within the meaning of section 92B and 92BA of the Act with its ‘Associate Enterprise’. In order to ensure that the ‘international transactions’ and ‘specified domestic transactions’ were at ‘Arm’s Length Price’, the case was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer u/s 92CA of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No. 28/JPR/2025 Mikuni India Pvt. Ltd., Alwar. Thereupon, the Transfer Pricing Officer passed order dated 31.10.2019, proposing an adjustment of Rs. 3,96,80,536/-, as regards international transaction of purchase of raw material , components and share parts. As regards, payment of royalty, TPO proposed adjustment of Rs. 3,77,46,038/-. In this way of total adjustment of Rs. 7,74,26,574/- was proposed with direction to the Assessing Officer to enhance income of the assessee by the said amount. That is how, the Assessing Officer proposed variations vide draft assessment order dated 20.12.2019. Ld. DR considered the objections raised by the assessee company and directed the Assessing Officer to incorporate its findings in the final order. So, the Assessing Officer made adjustments and revised income. 7. Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that the order has been passed by this Appellate Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee, thereby upholding rejection of CPM, without any reasoning and without examining the submissions of the appellant, made in this regard, and without any justification provided by the TPO for rejection of Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA No. 28/JPR/2025 Mikuni India Pvt. Ltd., Alwar. CPM, which was the most appropriate method having regard to the 60% installed capacity of the assessee. Ld. AR has submitted that in view of the submissions made in the appeal, TNMM was not the most appropriate method, which was wrongly applied, particularly when the assessee had provided complete data of all comparables and same deserved to be compared with the comparables of its equal installed capacity. Accordingly, Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the order passed by this Appellate Tribunal be recalled. 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the department has submitted that the entire material relied on by the appellant was considered by this Appellate Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal, for the reasons recorded therein, and that the application deserves to be dismissed when the order passed by this Appellate Tribunal does not suffer from any mistake apparent on record. 9. We have gone through the order dated 23.01.2025, passed by this Appellate Tribunal, wherein we dealt with all the contentions raised by Ld. AR for the appellant, and Learned DR for the department, took into consideration entire relevant material and decisions cited on behalf of the appellant. Ultimately, we were of the considered view that the decisions cited on behalf of the appellant were of no help to the appellant so as to Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA No. 28/JPR/2025 Mikuni India Pvt. Ltd., Alwar. say that the observations made and conclusions arrived at Ld. TPO in selecting TNMM were to be discarded from consideration or that CPM method selected by the assessee deserved to be applied in determining almost Arm’s length price. Accordingly, the assessment as regards payments made for purchase of raw material, by way of international transactions was upheld. 10. As regards the second addition pertaining to payment of royalty , we had gone through the entire material available on record and consequently the appeal was dismissed. We do not find that the order dated 23.01.2025, passed by this Appellate Tribunal suffers from any mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, this miscellaneous application is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Records be sent back. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 21/07/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA No. 28/JPR/2025 Mikuni India Pvt. Ltd., Alwar. 1. The Appellant- Mikuni India Pvt. Ltd. Alwar. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Circle-1, Alwar. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File MA No. 28/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "