ITA No.264/Ahd/2024

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Adani Enterprises Ltd., engaged in the business of trading various commodities, filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year, declaring an income of Rs.23,43,45,310/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and an assessment order was passed under section 143(3), making two additions, including an addition of Rs.1,12,17,629/- on account of Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments related to the purchase of coal. Aggrieved by this, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), which deleted the said adjustment. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal, challenging the order of the CIT(A) on several grounds, primarily related to the deletion of the TP adjustment and the disallowance of Rs.49,11,450/- under section 37 of the Act.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the adjustment/addition of Rs. 1,12,17,629/- on account of the purchase of coal by violating provisions of section 92(3) of the Act?
• 2. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing benefit of transactions where assessee has imported coal at a price lower than the market value which is contrary to the provisions of section 92(3) of the Income Tax Act?
• 3. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing benefit of transactions where assessee has imported coal at a price lower than the market value for the benchmarking under CUP without appreciating the fact that aggregation of the transactions is not allowed in the CUP method which is contrary to the provisions of Rule 10B of Income Tax Rules?
• 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in holding that aggregation of the transactions is considered in CUP method without appreciating the fact that each transaction is treated and benchmarked separately?
• 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in relying upon the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Pune Bench, in the case of M/s Henkel Adhesive Technologies India (P) Ltd V/s DCIT without appreciating the fact that the facts of the decision of Pune Tribunal is different from the case of assessee as in case of M/s Henkel Adhesive Technologies India (P) Ltd V/s DCIT, Hon'ble Tribunal held that assessee had submitted various factors proving necessity for such transactions at the higher prices and in present case assessee had not submitted /raised any such details/contentions?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Revenue.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• M/s. Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

• McCann Erickson India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle 16 (1)

• Sh. Vijay Rai Marwaha Vs. ACIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2020-21Partly Allowed

• The ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand (Appellant) Vs M/s. Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel & Co., C.J. House, Mota Pore, Nadiad, Kheda-387001 (Respondent)

  Ahmedabad bench

• Corteva Agriscience India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2009-10Allowed

• ITA No.2121/Chny/2024 & Cross-Objection No.1/Chny/2025