The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench, has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) and directed a fresh examination to determine whether the same income was added twice during the assessment proceedings in the Hyundai Motor case.
The Tribunal instructed the AO to verify the facts and ensure that no double addition of income was made while computing the assessee’s taxable income.
The petitioner, Hyundai Motor India Engineering Private Limited, is a company declaring a total income of INR 62,29,88,586. The case was opted for scrutiny, and notice was issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(2) on 28.06.2022.
The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arm’s length price due to certain international transactions involved.
The AO issued a draft assessment order, proposing an addition of INR 20,45,15,305 regarding a transfer pricing adjustment. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) raised objections to this assessment.
On September 19, 2024, the AO issued the final assessment order, which the taxpayer appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appellant’s counsel argued that the TPO’s observation regarding the lack of relevant details was not true.
The counsel contended that the TPO should have computed the Related Party Transaction (RPT) to appropriately decide whether to include or exclude a specific company as a comparable.
The tribunal discovered merit in the counsel’s argument and agreed that factual verification of the exact computation of the RPT percentage is necessary.
Read Also: ITAT Mumbai: No Addition for 26AS-Sales Mismatch Caused by Client’s Double TDS Deduction
Therefore, the tribunal considered it appropriate to remand the issue back to the AO/TPO for further examination. It was instructed that the verification details should be documented to ensure accurate computation of the RPT filter.
Additionally, the ITAT acknowledged the counsel’s assertion that an amount of INR 23,972 had been added twice and should be set aside. The tribunal directed that this duplicate addition be set aside if verified as a double entry.
The bench, consisting of Judicial Member Ravish Sood and Accountant Member Madhusudan Sawdia, ultimately allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
| Case Title | M/s. Hyundai Motor India Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT Circle 2(1) |
| Assessee by | S.P. Chidambaram |
| Revenue by | Smt. M. Narmada |
| Hyderabad ITAT | Read Order |
