MITUTOYO SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI V. DCIT, NEW DELHI

MA 427/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case revolves around a miscellaneous application by the assessee, M/s Mitutoyo South Asia P. Ltd., seeking rectification of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 29.04.2019. The Tribunal had initially recorded certain facts and conclusions incorrectly, which led to the filing of this application. The errors included misidentification of the appellant and respondent, incorrect attribution of submissions, and erroneous conclusions regarding the dismissal of the cross-objection. After reviewing the submissions and the original order, the Tribunal acknowledged the mistakes and rectified them accordingly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314228 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Section 14A, Rule 8D
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: BALRAM SHARMA
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

"MA.No.427/Del/2019 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No. 427/Del/2019 (In ITA No.364/Del/2016 & CO No.89/Del/2016) िनधा\u0005रणवष\u0005/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Mitutoyo South Asia P. Ltd., C-122, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi. PAN No.AAACM6682R अपीलाथ\u0011 Appellant \u0013\u0014यथ\u0011/Respondent Assessee by Shri Balram Sharma, CA Revenue by Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR सुनवाईक\bतारीख/ Date of hearing: 02.02.2024 उ\u000eोषणाक\bतारीख/Pronouncement on 07.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. Through this miscellaneous application the assessee is requesting for rectification of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.364/Del/2016 & CO No.89/Del/2016 dated 29.04.2019 stating that there are certain inadvertent errors crept in while passing the said order. 2. The first error as pointed out in the miscellaneous application is that in paragraph 4 of the order the Tribunal wrongly recorded MA.No.427/Del/2019 2 that the assessee had filed the appeal challenging the order of the DRP. But as a matter of fact the appeal was filed by the Revenue and the Assessee had filed cross objection, therefore, it is prayed that this inadvertent error be rectified. 3. On hearing both the parties and perusing the order of the Tribunal, we noticed that an inadvertent error had crept in while passing the order, therefore, we modify para 4 of the order and the same shall be read as under: - “4. Hence, the Revenue is in this appeal before us challenging the order of the DRP in respect of Bose Corporation India P. Ltd. and Dynalog (India) Ltd. and also deletion of Rs.28,75,000/- by invoking Section 14A read with Rule 8D.” 4. The next mistake pointed out by the assessee in the miscellaneous application is that in paragraph 10 the Tribunal inadvertently recorded that the DR made submissions that the company is into manufacturing. But it is the submission of the Ld. AR and not the Ld. DR as stated in the order. Therefore, this mistake be rectified. 5. We rectify this mistake in para 10 of the Tribunal’s order and in the first sentence of the said para “DR” is substituted with “AR”. MA.No.427/Del/2019 3 6. The third mistake pointed out in the miscellaneous application by the assessee is that in paragraph 28 the Tribunal inadvertently stated that appeal of the Revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed. It is the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that in the cross objection filed by the assessee the assessee agitated against the order of the DRP in not holding Bose Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. as not a comparable to the assessee. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel that as a matter of fact the Tribunal was pleased to allow assessee’s plea in the cross objection in para 22 of the order, wherein the TPO was directed to exclude Bose Corporation from the list of comparables for bench marking the International transactions. Therefore, it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel that the Tribunal having partly allowed the cross objection, while concluding in para 28, inadvertently stated that the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel requested that this mistake be rectified. 7. Ld. DR has fairly submitted that there is a mistake in the order of the Tribunal as the plea of the assessee in the cross objection was allowed. 8. Heard rival submissions. On perusal of para 22 of the order of Tribunal it is noticed that the Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude MA.No.427/Del/2019 4 Bose Corporation from the list of comparables for bench marking the International transactions. However, while concluding in para 28 the Tribunal inadvertently stated that the cross objection is dismissed. Thus, we rectify this mistake and para 28 of the Tribunal’s order shall be read as under: - “In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed.” 9. In the result, miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07/05/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 07.05.2025 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "