Paramount Communication (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED CIT v. Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 0775 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1528 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1756 (Del-Trib) IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, J.M. & PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M. Paramount Communication (P) Ltd. v. DCIT I.T.A. No. 2542/Del/2018 4 April, 2024 Appellant by: Satyan Sethi, Advocate, A.T. Panda, Advocate Respondent by: Ambika Aggarwal, Sr.DR ORDER *Pradip Kumar Kedia A.M.* The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi (CIT(A) in short) dated 31-1-2018 arising from the assessment order dated 15-12-2016 passed by the assessing officer (assessing officer) under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning assessment year 2013-14. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi (briefly 'the Commissioner (Appeals)') has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 35,49,435 being the notional interest on delayed receipt of export proceeds from its associated enterprises (AEs). 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not appreciate that delayed receipt of export proceeds from AEs was not an international transactions under section 92CA of the Act. 1.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not appreciate that applying TNMM, the TPO has already accepted exports at arm length. Hence, no separate bench marking for delay in receiving export proceeds was warranted. 1.3 Without prejudice, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the adjusted operating margin ratio even after application of LIBOR + 1.5% rate would be 0.28% and the same would be within $3% range of safe harbor rule. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1756 (Del-Trib)

IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH

CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, J.M. & PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.

Paramount Communication (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

I.T.A. No. 2542/Del/2018

4 April, 2024

Appellant by: Satyan Sethi, Advocate, A.T. Panda, Advocate

Respondent by: Ambika Aggarwal, Sr.DR

ORDER

Pradip Kumar Kedia A.M.

The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi (CIT(A) in short) dated 31-1-2018 arising from the assessment order dated 15-12-2016 passed by the assessing officer (assessing officer) under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning assessment year 2013-14.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi (briefly 'the Commissioner (Appeals)') has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 35,49,435 being the notional interest on delayed receipt of export proceeds from its associated enterprises (AEs).

1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not appreciate that delayed receipt of export proceeds from AEs was not an international transactions under section 92CA of the Act.

1.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not appreciate that applying TNMM, the TPO has already accepted exports at arm length. Hence, no separate bench marking for delay in receiving export proceeds was warranted.

1.3 Without prejudice, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the adjusted operating margin ratio even after application of LIBOR + 1.5% rate would be 0.28% and the same would be within $3% range of safe harbor rule.