Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: VAT RATES :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: TDS :: form 3cd :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: empanelment :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: cpt :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT Audit
 
 
From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), New Delhi Vs. Alcatel India Limited (now known as Alcatel Lucent India Pvt Ltd) 1st floor, 5 Sikandara Road, New Delhi 110001
November, 27th 2014
                                                                       I.T.A. No.: 962/Del/12
                                                                    Assessment year 2003-04

                                                                                   Page 1 of 4


                   IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                             DELHI I BENCH, NEW DELHI

                 [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Accountant Member)
                      and C. M. Garg (Judicial Member)]

                               I.T.A. No.: 962/Del/12
                              Assessment year 2003-04

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Circle 1(1), New Delhi                                       ......................Appellant


Vs.

Alcatel India Limited                                      ...................Respondent
(now known as Alcatel Lucent India Pvt Ltd)
1 st floor, 5 Sikandara Road, New Delhi 110001
[PAN: AACCA8667N]

Appearances by:

Yogesh Kumar Verma , for the appellant
Himanshu Shekhar Sinha , for the respondent



                                    O R D E R


Per Pramod Kumar:


1.       This appeal is directed against the order dated 26 th December 2011,
passed by the learned CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3)
of the     Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter re ferred to as `the Act'), for the
assessment year 2003-04.


2.       Grievance raised by the Assessing Officer is as follows:


         That the learned CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the
         international transactions entered into by the assessee are at arm's
         length and in deleting the addition of Rs 19,32,00,000 made by the
         AO on account of transfer pricing adjustments.
                                                                 I.T.A. No.: 962/Del/12
                                                              Assessment year 2003-04

                                                                             Page 2 of 4





3.    To adjudicate on this appeal, only a few material facts need to be taken
note of. The assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Alactel France an d is
engaged in the business of manufacturing and distribution of telecom
equipment and rendering of services. During the relevant financial period, the
assessee had entered into various international transactions with its AEs. The
assessee's business is i n various segments, namely (a) manufacturing, (b)
trading. (c) software, (d) technical services, (e) info gathering, (f) marketing,
and (g) others. While (a),(c),(d),(e),(f) segments were doing business only with
AEs, and segment (g) was doing business with non AEs, i.e. independent
enterprises, in segment (b), i.e. trading, the assessee was doing business with
the AEs as well as non AEs. In the course of proceedings before the TPO, the
transfer pricing approach of the assessee, so far as manufacturing segm ent
wherein the assessee had used CUP and TNMM, and trading segment, where the
assessee had employed RPM, was rejected. The TPO adopted the TNMM in
respect of these segments. It is not really necessary to refer to the reasons of
rejecting the methods of ascertaining the ALP, as employed by the assessee, as
there is no dispute now on that aspect of the matter. The issue in dispute is with
regard to the profitability of the non AE segments. In the course of applying the
TNMM and preparation of segregated results for manufacturing and trading
activity, the TPO reduced the components relatable to entire segment (c),(d),(e)
and (f) from overall profits. What was thus left out was profits of segment (a),
profits of segment (b) and profits of segment (g) on which PLI as per the TNMM
was applied. The assessee was aggrieved of this computation inasmuch as while
segment (a) consisted of all intra AE transactions, segment (b) partly contained
the transactions with non AEs, even on which TNMM was applied, and segment
(g) which only had transactions with non AEs on which also the TNMM was
applied. The contention of the assessee was that TNMM cannot be applied in
respect of transactions with non AEs. In appeal, the CIT(A) has accepted this
contention and restricted the TNMM application only in respect of the
international transactions with the AEs. Its on this basis that the impugned
relief of Rs 19,32,00,000 has been given. The Assessing Officer is not satisfied
and is in appeal before us.
                                                                   I.T.A. No.: 962/Del/12
                                                                Assessment year 2003-04

                                                                               Page 3 of 4


4.      We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and
duly considered factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position.


5.      In principle, the issue is no longer res integra . It is well settled legal
position that the ALP adjustments can only be made in respect of international
transactions with the AEs and cannot extend to the transactions with non AEs.
There are large number decisions of the coordinate be nches, including in the
case of Alstom Projects India Ltd Vs ACIT [26 ITR (Trib) 322], holding so. In the
case of CIT Vs Stratex Networks India Pvt Ltd (354 ITR 304), Hon'ble
jurisdictional High Court has also accepted this position. Learned Departmental
Representative, even as vehemently relying upon the stand of the TPO, does not
dispute this legal position but he contends that the factual elements embedded
in this contention, at least on computation aspect, need to be verified by the
TPO. That is only arithmetical part giving effect to this principle. We see no
harm in this exercise.


6.      In view of the above discussions, we deem it fit and proper to uphold the
stand of the CIT(A) in principle but remit the matter for the limited purposes of
verifying the computation of excluding transactions with non - AEs in calculating
the ALP required to be made under the TNMM method.             To this extent, the
matter is restored to the file of the TPO.





7.      In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms
indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on 25 th day of November,
2014.


Sd/xx                                                                         Sd/xx
C M Garg                                                         Pramod Kumar
(Judicial Member)                                           (Accountant Member)

New Delhi,    25 th day of November 2014
                                                                     I.T.A. No.: 962/Del/12
                                                                  Assessment year 2003-04

                                                                                 Page 4 of 4



Copies to :   (1)   The assessee                (2)   The Assessing Officer
              (3)   CIT                         (4)   CIT(A)
              (5)   Departmental Representative
              (6)   Guard File
                                                                              By order etc

                                                                      Assistant Registrar
                                                          Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
                                                             actDelhi benches, New Delhi

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Contact Us

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions