Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

37. The ld. DR, in his rejoinder, drew the attention of the Bench to the last para of page 27 of the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that no finding has been given by the CIT(A) that TNMM is not applicable. Even the ld. Counsel has also not given any justification for non-application of TNMM. He submitted that the comparables adopted by the TPO were not examined by the CIT(A) nor any decision has been given regarding inclusion/exclusion of certain comparables. He submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has further given a finding that internal CUP is not appropriate and the assessee has neither filed any cross objection nor any cross appeal against the finding of the CIT(A). He submitted that CUP is not applicable since sufficient data is not available. The available data of AE is also not given nor full data of the assessee was given. He submitted that CUP has to be rejected as such in absence of complete data and in absence of any substantive argument of the ld. Counsel. So far as RPM is concerned, he submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has not discussed this issue. So far as Resale Price Method is concerned, he submitted that the same is not acceptable since in manufacturing there is no resale and profit split method is not before us. Further, the assessee in its TP study itself has taken itself as a manufacturer. So far as comparables are concerned, the ld. DR submitted that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the TPO for re-examination of the comparables. So far as the argument of the ld. Counsel for the assessee regarding start up is concerned, he submitted that it is not a start up, but, it is a joint venture between IOC and Exxon Mobil.