IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

AND SHRI RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

I.T.A. No. 6722/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Roechling Industrial Vs. The Deputy India Private Limited Commissioner of Plot No.8, Phase III GIDC, Income Tax, Circle Savli Alindra, Vadodara, 3(1)(1)

Gujarat-391775 Circle 3(1)(1), Aaykar PAN: AABCR7780E Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri Ajit Jain & Ms. Rujuta Sanghavi Respondent by Shri Asif Karmali, SR. D.R.

Date of Hearing 17.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.03.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.:

The Present appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 25/10/2024 passed by the Income Tax department Assessment unit, under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C r.w.s 144B of the Act, on following grounds of appeal:

“ On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the

Appellant craves to prefer an appeal against the order dated 25

October 2024 passed by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned AO") under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), in pursuance to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Mumbai ('DRP'), on the following grounds:

On the facts, and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned AO has, based on the directions of the DRP, erred in making additions of INR 1,61,14,337 to the Appellant's total income.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the proposed adjustment has been made by the learned AO/TPO/ DRP with a pre-determined mindset and not followed the principles of natural justice and basic tenets of transfer pricing regulations.

3. Incorrect approach while drawing the segmental working

3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/TPO/DRP failed to take cognizance of the additional evidence filed by the Appellant in form of certificate obtained from the Statutory Auditor of the Appellant certifying the segmental working.

3.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, while determining the arm's length price in respect of the trading segment, the learned AO/TPO has made errors in considering incorrect COGS number while computing the segmental margin of trading segment and the learned DRP further erred in not providing the allocation methodology to be adopted for allocation of COGS expense thereby leading to incorrect computation of adjustment in respect of the trading segment.

4. Incorrect approach adopted in respect of the manufacturing segment

4.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP erred in rejecting the CUP analysis submitted by the Appellant as an alternate benchmarking analysis wherein CUP details were provided for more than 96% of the international transactions (i.e. 96% in case of purchases and 97% in case of sales) for justifying the AL.P of the international transactions in the manufacturing segment.

4.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/TPO/DRP erred in not allowing the COGS adjustment made to the manufacturing segment of the Appellant.

5. Assessment order time barred On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/National Faceless Assessment Centre has erred in issuing Assessment Order dated 25 October 2024 beyond the time limit as prescribed under Section 153 of the Act. The Appellant submits that the Assessment Order being barred by limitation is without jurisdiction and void ab initio and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

6. Erred in calculating interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in calculating interest u/s Section 234A, 234B and

234C and included the same while calculating the tax demand.”

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2. The assessee (formerly known as Roechling Engineering Pla