Akzonobel India Private Limited v. The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax

$~23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 370/2022 AKZONOBEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant Through:Mr.Vishal Kalra with Mr.S.S.Tomar,Advocates.Advocates. versus THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through:Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr.StandingCounsel for the Revenue withMr.Vipul Agrawal and Mr.ParthSemwal, Advocates.Counsel for the Revenue withMr.Vipul Agrawal and Mr.ParthSemwal, Advocates. % Date of Decision: 27[th]September, 2022 CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): C.M.No.42494/2022 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. ITA No.370/2022 1.Present income tax appeal has been filed challenging the order dated28[th]February, 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘theITAT’) in ITA No. 6007/Del./2014 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.28[th]February, 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘theITAT’) in ITA No. 6007/Del./2014 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. ITA No.370/2022 2.Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the ITAT has erred inupholding the transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs.1,94,65,250/- inrespect of the international transaction pertaining to receipt of businesssupport services and the arm’s length price of the said transaction at ‘Nil’. 3.He states that the ITAT has erred in subjecting the transactionpertaining to receipt of administrative services to comparable uncontrolledprice (‘CUP’) method without demonstrating any comparable instances andignoring the arm's length analysis submitted by the Appellant. 4.He also states that similar administrative services have been providedin the subsequent assessment years and have been accepted by the ITAT. 5.Upon a perusal of the paper book, this Court finds that all the threeauthorities below have given concurrent findings of fact that the Appellanthad failed to furnish evidence to demonstrate that administrative serviceswere actually rendered by the AE and the assessee had received suchservices. In fact, the ITAT has noted in the impugned order “….On aspecific query made by the Bench to demonstrate the receipt of servicesfrom AE through cogent evidence, including, any communication with theAE, learned counsel for the assessee expressed his inability to furnish anyevidence and repeated his submission to restore the matter back to theAssessing Officer for enabling the assessee to furnish evidence, if any.”. 6.This Court is also of the view that every Assessment Year is aseparate unit which is governed by its own peculiar facts. Further, the ITATin the impugned order has clarified that its decision would not prejudice theassessee’s claim in any other assessment year, as it has to be decided basedon the evidences produced to establish the claim of receipt of services fromAE. ITA No.370/2022 7.Further , this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs.Make My Trip India (P) Ltd., (2017) 87 taxmann.com 284 (Delhi) hasheldthatdifferenceofopinionbetweentheparties,astotheappropriateness of one or the other methods to calculate arm’s length price,cannot per se be a ground for intereference and the appropriateness of themethod unless shown to be contrary to the Rules specially 10B and 10C arehardly issues that ought to be gone into under Section 260A of the Act. 8.Consequently, this Court is of the view that no substantial question oflaw arises for consideration in the present appeal and the same isaccordingly dismissed. MANMOHAN, J SEPTEMBER 27, 2022KA MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J ITA No.370/2022