TORRECID INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI V. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11(3)(1), MUMBAI

MA 265/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around a typographical error in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's earlier judgment concerning the transfer pricing of Torrecid India Private Limited for the assessment year 2012-13. The error pertained to the margin percentage of Nilchem Industries Ltd., which was incorrectly stated in the tribunal's decision. The assessee, Torrecid India, filed a Miscellaneous Application to correct this mistake, arguing that the correct margin should be (-7.12%) instead of the recorded (-3.23%). The tribunal acknowledged the error and corrected the margin, thereby including Nilchem Industries Ltd. as a comparable in the transfer pricing assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473373 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAHESH PAMNANI
• Assessee Lawyers: JITENDRA SINGH
• Keywords: Transfer pricing

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No.265/Mum/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.1575/Mum/2022) (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Torrecid India Private Limited Flat No.29,30,31 GIDC Savli Alindra, Vadodara-Gujarat Gandhinagar, Gujarat-391 775 Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-11(3)(1) Aayakar Bhavan M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 PAN/GIR No.AADCT4321M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Jitendra Singh Revenue by Shri Mahesh Pamnani Date of Hearing 03/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement 30/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): In the aforesaid Miscellaneous Application the applicant assessee has stated that there was a typographical mistake in para 16 which reads as under:- “The second argument of the assessee is with respect to comparable Nilchem Industries Ltd. The assessee's appeal is that should be included whereas, the learned CIT (A) has rejected the same. We find that in paragraph no.6.3.1, the learned CIT (A) on request of the assessee rejected this MA No. 265/Mum/2024 Torrecid India Pvt. Ltd. 2 comparable by excluding it. Now before us, the assessee pleads that this comparable company should be accepted as it was not at all argued before the Ld CIT (A) for its exclusion but only with respect to accepting correct margin. PLI of Nilchem Industries Ltd. is -3.27% and therefore, assessee wants the same to be included in the comparability analysis. The claim of the assessee is that the assessee has accepted the same in its transfer pricing submission which was also accepted by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer in its order. Further, it is the claim of the assessee that assessee does not file any claim before the learned CIT (A) for exclusion of Nilchem Industries Ltd. We find that in the remand report proceedings, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer included the above comparable company .e. Nilchem Industries Ltd. having the margin of 10.78%. The assessee did not object to this comparable company for its exclusion but provided the correction in the margin. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer recomputed the margin of (-)3.23%. Thus, we find that Nilchem Industries Ltd. is a comparable not in dispute between the assessee and the learned Transfer Pricing Officer, could not have been excluded by the learned CIT (A) when none of the parties contended so. Accordingly, we direct the learned Transfer Pricing Officer/ Assessing Officer to include the Nilchem Industries Ltd. as a good comparable.” 2. It has been stated that in the line where Tribunal has stated “the ld. Transfer Pricing Officer re-computed the margin of (-3.23%), it should be read as (-7.12%). This is evident from the submissions made by the assessee during the course of hearing at page 1045-1046 of the paper book. 3. From the perusal of the records, we find that there is a typographical mistake and accordingly, the correct working of margin is taken at (-7.12%) of Nilchem Industries Ltd. Thus, (-3.23%) should be (-7.12%). Accordingly, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. MA No. 265/Mum/2024 Torrecid India Pvt. Ltd. 3 4. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 30th January,2025. Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 30/01/2025 KARUNA, sr.ps Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// "