Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO / Ld. TPO and Ld. DRP grossly erred in rejecting comparability analysis in the TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability analysis based on application of additional filters in an arbitrary manner while determining the arm's length price; and 2.3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO/ TPO and Ld. DRP grossly erred in including companies in the comparability analysis which do not satisfy the test of comparability, rejecting companies similar to the appellant while performing the comparability analysis and thereby resorting to cherry picking of comparables.

4. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee has filed present appeal before us.

5. As regards to Ground No. 1, this ground is general against the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the final assessment order. Hence, Ground No. 1 is dismissed.

6. As regards to Ground No. 2 relating to an addition of Rs. 12,19,46,634 in relation to the manufacturing segment of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the AO/TPO and the DRP grossly erred in disregarding the methodical benchmarking process carried out by the assessee in the Transfer Pricing documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; and in particular modifying/ rejecting the filters applied by the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO/TPO and the DRP grossly erred in rejecting comparability analysis in the TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability analysis based on application of additional filters in an arbitrary manner while determining the arm's length price. The Ld. AR submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO/TPO and the DRP grossly erred in including companies in the comparability analysis which do not satisfy the test of comparability, rejecting companies similar to the assessee while performing the comparability analysis and thereby resorting to cherry picking of comparables. The assessee is engaged in manufacturing and sale of Fractional Horse Power ('FHP') electric motors used in air conditioners, coolers, washing machines, etc. During the year, the assessee prepared a detailed TP study by following a methodical approach and selected 7 comparable companies for benchmarking the its international transaction. The business description of the comparables selected in the TP study is as follows:

The Ld. AR submitted that, it is clearly visible that the companies finally selected by the TPO are also engaged in different products and is a clear departure from the approach of selecting the comparables which are engaged in similar business of the assessee. This approach followed by the TPO clearly indicates that the TPO has resorted to cherry picking of the comparables and thus demonstrated an intention to arrive at a pre- formulated opinion with an intention of making an addition to the returned income of the assessee. In this regard, the assessee would place reliance on the following judgement in respect of cherry picking of comparables. • ACIT Vs M/S Toshiba India Pvt Ltd (ITA No.3175/Del /2007) • Philips Software Centre Private Limited vs. ACIT, Bangalore (ITA No. 218(BNG)/08) • GE India Technology Centre Private Limited vs DDIT (ITA No. 789/Bang/2010 and ITA No. 487 & 025/Bang/2011) The Ld. AR submitted that the analysis undertaken by the assessee as a part of transfer pricing documentation should be upheld and the approach adopted by the TPO to cherry pick high margin companies during the course of assessment proceedings is ought to be rejected.