TATA SONS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI V. CIT (A)-58, MUMBAI

MA 147/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Tata Sons Private Ltd., the Appellant, seeking rectification of a Tribunal order concerning the Assessment Year 2012-13. The Appellant contended that certain grounds of appeal were not adjudicated and that a Supreme Court judgment was overlooked, which could have influenced the Tribunal's decision on the valuation of shares in a transfer pricing context. The Departmental Representative argued that the application was essentially a request for a review, not a rectification. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that the grounds were collectively addressed and the Supreme Court judgment cited did not constitute a mistake apparent on record.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32751 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2024
• Other Referred Cases: G.L. Sultania vs SEBI, Commissioner of Income-Tax (IT-4), Mumbai Vs. Reliance Telecom Limited
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEE
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Valuation report
• Section: 254(2); 14A; 92B; 92C; 260A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"H\" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No. 147/MUM/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 1093/Mum/2019) (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s. Tata Sons Private Ltd., Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Maharashtra [PAN:AAACT4060A] …………. Appellant The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 58, Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. Vs ……………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Department For the Respondent/Assessee : : Ms. Arati Vissanji & Ms. Aastha Shah Shri H. M. Bhatt Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 19.07.2023 11.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present Miscellaneous Application has been preferred by the Assessee seeking rectification of the common order, dated 15/03/2024, passed by the Tribunal disposing off, inter alia, appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2012- 13 (ITA No. 1093/Mum/2019) against the order, dated 31/12/2018, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Mumbai. MA No. 147/Mum/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.1093/Mum/2019) Assessment Year 2012-13 2 2. We have heard both the sides. It has been contended by the Assessee that mistake apparent on record had crept into the common order, dated 15/03/2024, passed by the Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Order’] since the Tribunal had failed to adjudicate Ground No.4(b) and 4(e) raised by the Appellant. It has also been contended that paragraph 80 of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.L. Sultania vs SEBI, dated 16/05/2007, had skipped the attention of the Tribunal and had the same been considered by the Tribunal in the context of Ground 4(c) raised by the Appellant, the final conclusion drawn by the Tribunal would have been different. 3. Per contra the Learned Departmental Representative had contended that there was no mistake apparent on record in the Order and that the Assessee was in effect seeking a review of the Order. The Tribunal has, after taking into consideration the submission of parties and the applicable law, confirmed the Order passed by CIT(A) while deciding Ground No.4 raised in the appeal against the Assessee. Therefore, the contentions raised by the Assessee are without merit. 4. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 5. The first contention of the Assessee is that the Tribunal has omitted to consider Ground No. 4(b) and 4(e) which reads as under: “4(b). The learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the appellant’s contentions that since the consideration received was on capital account and therefore outside the scope of Sec. MA No. 147/Mum/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.1093/Mum/2019) Assessment Year 2012-13 3 92B and hence cannot be taxed as income of the appellant.” “4(e). The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the TPO/AO applying the discounting rate of 9.18%, different from the rate computed by the independent valuer in the valuation Report whilst computing the value of Tata Global Beverages group Limited equity shares, under the DCF method.” 5.1. On perusal of the grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee in the appeal we find that Grounds No. 4(a) to 4(e) pertained to transfer pricing adjustment, Ground Nos. 6(I) to 6(IV) pertained to disallowance of interest & other expenses under Section 14A of the Act, and Ground Nos. 7(i) to 7(ii) pertained to computation of adjusted book profits under Section 115 JB of the Act. On perusal of the Order, we find that the aforesaid grounds containing sub-grounds/clauses have been decided collectively/together by the Tribunal as the same were connected. Ground of Appeal No. 4(a) to 4(e), 6(I) to 6(IV) and 7(i) to 7(ii) have been dealt with collectively in paragraph 4 to 10, 14 to 17 and 18 to 19, respectively. 5.2. On perusal of paragraph 4 to 10 of the Order dealing with Ground No. 4(a) to 4(e), we find that the Tribunal has narrated the facts germane to the issue, recorded the submissions advanced by both the sides and thereafter, rejected the Ground No.4 raised in the appeal. The Tribunal has identified the transaction under consideration being sale of shares of Tata Global Beverage Group Ltd., an overseas subsidiary of the Assessee, to Tata Global Beverages Capital Ltd, an unlisted company incorporated in United Kingdom. Treating the same as ‘International Transaction in terms of Section 92B of the Act, the Tribunal has, in paragraph 7 of the Order, referred to the provisions contained in Section 92C of the Act dealing with the MA No. 147/Mum/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.1093/Mum/2019) Assessment Year 2012-13 4 determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) using the most appropriate method. After discussing the method selected for valuation of shares and the valuation report in subsequent paragraphs, the Tribunal has, in Paragraph 10 of the Order, declined to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A) whereby the method adopted for determination of the ALP and the valuation of shares sold as adopted/determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer was upheld by the CIT(A). On a combined reading of paragraphs 4 to 10 of the Order, we are of the view that the contentions of the Appellant raised in Ground No. 4(b) relating to the transaction under consideration falling outside the ambit of Section 92B of the Act as well as the challenge to the use of discounting rate of 9.18% by the Transfer Pricing Officer raised in Ground No. 4(e) stand rejected by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the Assessee that the Tribunal had omitted to adjudicate upon Ground No.4(b) and 4(e) raised by the Assessee. 6. As regards the contention of the Assessee regarding omissions by the Tribunal to consider paragraph 80 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.L. Sultania vs SEBI dated 16.05.2007 (supra) having a bearing on adjudication of Ground No. 4(c) raised by the Assessee is concerned, we are of the view that the submissions advanced on behalf of the Assessee are based upon the belief harbored by the Assessee and therefore, the same cannot be regarded as a mistake apparent on record. Therefore, the second contention raised by the appellant is also rejected. 7. Since we have concluded as above (in paragraph 5.2 and 6), the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MA No. 147/Mum/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.1093/Mum/2019) Assessment Year 2012-13 5 Commissioner of Income-Tax (IT-4), Mumbai Vs. Reliance Telecom Limited: [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) would become applicable. In the aforesaid judgment it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in case an assessee is of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous, either on facts or in law, the only remedy available to such assessee was to prefer the appeal under Section 260A of the Act. Accordingly, the relief as claimed by the Assessee cannot be granted in the present miscellaneous application preferred by the Assessee under Section 254(2) of the Act. 8. In result, the Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. Order pronounced on 11.10.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Billaiya) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 11.10.2024 MP, LDC MA No. 147/Mum/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.1093/Mum/2019) Assessment Year 2012-13 6 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ The CIT 4. Ůधान आयकर आयुƅ / Pr.CIT 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सȑािपत Ůित //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai "