9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-05,thus the satellite charges cannot be considered as "telecommunication charges" so as to exclude from the export turnover - alternate ground that the technical fees and satellite link charges should also be excluded from the total turnover in case they were to be excluded from the export turnover covered in favour of the assessee by various judicial pronouncements. in favour of assessee. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)- Held that:- Since this issue was crystallised by the order of the ITAT in the same assessment year, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) does not arise, as there is no need to deduct tax on the amount paid to Equant Network Services Ltd. Accordingly the disallowance made by the AO stands deleted. In favour of assessee. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of ITES services rendered by the assessee - Held that:- Since, the assessee was not been given proper opportunity to examine the comparables selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer and as the objections raised by the assessee are not examined or rebutted either by the Transfer Pricing Officer or by the Dispute Resolution Panel and considering the fact that the information obtained by the Transfer Pricin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany incorporated in England and Wales. The assessee renders services exclusively as a captive service provider to TPSL vide its agreement dated December 21, 2001. Information technology enabled services include: Processing of insurance claims, premiums and treaties Accounting for insurance underwriters and clients Insurance accounting support services Data Processing The assessee has two units one at SEEPZ and another at Vikroli in Mumbai. The unit at Vikroli qualifies for deduction under section 10A of the Act. No separate books were maintained for the units. Since the assessee rendered services only to the TSPL, U. K. and all its business income is export oriented, claim is that its entire income qualifies for deduction under section 10A of the Act except those that pertains to SEEPZ unit. The assessee allocates expenditure and income between units in the proportion to the number of employees working in each of the unit (head-count). This nmethod is being followed consistently by the assessee every year. The deduction under section 10A was claimed in respect to the net profit earned by the unit at Vikroli. The Assessing Officer proposed in the draft assessment order disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be discarded even though it was not questioned at any time in the past, as was held by the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. EHPT India P. Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 41 (Delhi). Relying on the decision it was the submission that the Assessing Officer could not have disallowed the entire deduction rejecting the apportionment on head count. However, it was fairly admitted that the assessee was not claiming the deduction on the entire 700 employees in the Vikroli division and for certain reasons was excluding claim on employees transferred earlier from SEEPZ to Vikroli. Therefore, it would be fair if the deduction is restricted to balance employees out of the claim made. The learned Departmental representative however, supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Dispute Resolution Panel. We have considered the issue. The Assessing Officer relied on the provisions of section 10A(4) for disallowing the entire claim under section 10A, which was being allowed in the earlier years without any dispute. The provisions of section 10A(4) are as under: "10A(4).-For the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (1A), the profits derived from export of articles or things or computer so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... depend upon the answer to the question whether the method adopted by the assessee, namely, that of apportioning the indirect expenses between the software technological park unit and the non-software technological park domestic unit on the basis of the 'head-count' is an unreasonable method and if it has been followed consistently by the assessee in the past and has also been accepted by the Department, should the Revenue authorities be permitted to disturb the same in the years under appeal. The settled position in such matters is to examine whether the method which is canvassed for acceptance is the one (a) which has been consistently accepted by both parties, namely, the assessee and the Revenue in the past ; (b) which is a reasonable method having regard to the nature of the business and other relevant factors and (c) which does not distort the profits. There is no dispute that the head-count method has been consistently followed and accepted without demur in the past. A departure therefrom is sought to be made only in the years under consideration by the Departmental authorities. That it is a reasonable method and fair to both sides is indicated by the conduct of the Revenue a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d-count method is the most appropriate method has been raised by the Assessing Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings and it has been stated by the assessee that though the turnover basis preferred by the Assessing Officer may be more suited to manufacturing businesses, in the case of service industry such as the assessee's case the head-count method would be more appropriate to be followed for the purpose of apportioning the indirect expenses. It appears to be a plausible view, though it can possibly also be a debatable view. But merely because there can be more than one method of apportioning the common expenses between the software technological park and domestic units it cannot be said that the method of head-count followed by the assessee should be discarded, that too mid-way, even though it was not questioned at any time in the past. The provisions of sub-section (4) of section 10A, relied upon by the Assessing Officer, apply for the purpose of segregating the profits of the business into export profits and domestic profits. It is a statutory formula for ascertaining what are profits derived from the export of the eligible items. It has to be read with sub-sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. However, in the anxiety of disallowing the entire claim, the Assessing Officer has not examined the apportionment of export turnover and expenses of units. Therefore, as this aspect was not examined by the Assessing Officer, for examination of the actual apportionment and arriving at the profits of the units the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is free to examine the issue of deriving at the profits of eligible unit. While considering, the submissions with reference to the non-claiming of deduction on employees transferred from SEEPZ to Vikroli should also be examined. The assessee should be given due opportunity. We make it clear that the deduction of claim under section 10A is eligible on Vikroli unit and the Assessing Officer is only directed to examine the quantum of deduction. This quantum of deduction may also depend on the issues in other grounds which are dealt with later. Ground No. 1 is considered allowed. Ground No. 2 is on the issue of reduction of technical fees and satellite link charges from export turnover. The Assessing Officer while rejecting the entire claim of section 10A however alternately also reduced the tec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the claim of the appellant that the technical services were not provided outside India is found to be factually correct, therefore, the expenses relating to technical services is not required to be deducted. Accordingly the Assessing Officer is directed not to deduct this amount from the export turnover. To this extent the appellant gets relief. Therefore, ground No. 1 is partly allowed in favour of the appellant." Following the above findings in the assessment year 2004-05 which the Revenue accepted, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the assessment year 2005-06 also deleted the same. Even in the assessment year 2005-06 there is no appeal by the Revenue to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, since the issue was already held in favour of the assessee on facts, we are of the opinion that the principles of judicial consistency require that the Assessing Officer should not have excluded the amount from the export turnover. The Dispute Resolution Panel also was not correct in rejecting the issue. In view of this, we allow the ground raised by the assessee on this issue of expenses for technical services. The other amount involved in ground No. 2 is with referen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chnical services outside India. The basic idea or intention for deducting the first type of expenditure, i.e., freight, telecommunication charges, or insurance charges is that delivery of goods should be free on board (FOB). The Central Board of Direct Taxes vide its Circular No. 564, dated July 5, 1990 ([1990] 184 ITR (St.) 137) clarified this aspect in respect of deduction under section 80HHC. On the basis of the above discussion, it can be said that only those freight, communication charges of insurance attributable to delivery of goods out of India are to be considered while reducing from consideration received in convertible foreign exchange. Thus, if such expenses are not attributable to delivery of goods outside India, such expenses are not required to be deducted from the consideration. Normally, in a transaction of purchase and sale, there are two types of conditions between the parties. One is where price quoted of goods is inclusive of all expenses or in other words price quoted is only in respect of goods. Another condition is where price of goods and charges of expenses are separately stated. In a case where such expenses are to be separately charged, invoices are prep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m consideration in foreign exchange. However, if for the sake of arguments it was presumed that the expenditure incurred was attributable to delivery of goods outside India even though same was not to be excluded. The words "received" and "but not include" used in clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to section 10A are significant. What is to be excluded is out of what is received. In the instant case, the assessee received consideration against software, i.e., goods. For this purpose, the assessee had demonstrated by referring to invoices and agreement. The agreement, invoices and the turnover clearly showed that the assessee did not recover any such expenditure. Therefore, there was no scope for any exclusion from the export turnover on account of such expenses. If at all on presumption, it was to be excluded for the purpose of "export turnover", then on the same assumption, reason and analogy it should be excluded from "total turnover". Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not correct in excluding internet service provider expenses from consideration received in convertible foreign exchange while calculating export turnover for the purpose of section 10A.' 8. The internet service prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdingly, this alternate ground raised is not considered as it becomes academic in nature. 10. After considering the facts of the case and the principles established by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Patni Telecom P. Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 308 ITR (AT) 414 (Hyd), it is held that the expenses on satellite link charges does not come within the scope of 'telecommunication charges' as provided in clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to section 10A and accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed not to exclude the same from export turnover. Assessing Officer is directed to recal- culate the deduction under section 10A. The assessee's grounds are considered allowed." As seen from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the assessment year 2005-06, it is noticed that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has followed the above order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal while giving relief on "satellite charges". In view of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the assessment year 2004-05, we hold that the satellite charges cannot be considered as "telecommunication charges" so as to exclude from the export turnover. We accordingly uphold the assessee's grie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... U. K. and Nashville, U. S. A. The intention of the assessee-company was to avail of connectivity services and it was not concerned as to which equipment were used to provide such connectivity services. The assessee had no right to access the equipment forming part of communication channel except for data communication and transmission. The assessee had no control over the said equipment or physical access to it. There is nothing to show positive act of utilisation, application or employment of equipment for the desired purpose. The assessee could not come face to face with the equipment, operate it or control its functions in some manner. It had no possessory rights in relation to the said equipment. It only took advantage of a facility of use of sophisticated equipment installed and provided by the service provider. Having regard to all these facts of the case and keeping in view the decisions of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in the cases of ISRO Satellite Centre, In re [2008] 307 ITR 59 (AAR) and Dell International Services (India) P. Ltd., In re [2008] 305 ITR 37 (AAR), we are of the view that the payment made by the assessee to Equant in connection with standard commun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame of the comparable company Cost plus (%) 1 Allsec Technologies Ltd. 28.73 2 Crisil Marketwire Ltd. -18.34 3 Newgen Software Technologies Ltd. NA 4 Transworks Information Services Ltd. 19.62 5 Trigent Software Ltd. NA 6 VJIL Consulting Ltd. 6.36 7 Visualsoft Technologies Ltd. 12.70 8 ICRA Online Ltd. 10.49 9 Maars Software International Ltd. 10.83 10 MYM Technologies Ltd. 33.72 Average 13.01 The assessee and the Transfer Pricing Officer are in agreement as to the method applied and the profit level indicator used to benchmark the transactions. However, the Transfer Pricing Officer has rejected most of the comparables selected by the assessee in its transfer pricing study on various reasons. Out of the ten companies taken by the assessee as comparable, the Transfer Pricing Officer rejected eig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r main propositions under the following heads: (i) Wrong comparable companies selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer and confirmed by the Dispute Resolution Panel. (ii) Erroneous rejection of the assessee's comparable companies. (iii) No adjustment on risk provided by the Transfer Pricing Officer. (iv) Adjustment on working capital wrongly computed by the Transfer Pricing Officer. On the issue of wrong comparables selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer, learned counsel made detailed submissions with reference to abnormal high percentage of income, functional profiles being different, information obtained under section 133(6) not being provided to the assessee and some of the data not available in public domain and referred to the detailed submissions made to the Dispute Resolution Panel on various objections and also before the Transfer Pricing Officer. It was his submission that the Transfer Pricing Officer has made wrong selection of comparables without considering the assessee's objections and neither the Transfer Pricing Officer nor the Dispute Resolution Panel has commented upon various objections raised by the assessee. In some of the cases, it was his submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this fact. Hence it is submitted that on the basis of non availability of segmental information, the company ought not to be considered as a comparable company. (d) Presence of intangibles : An analysis of the fixed assets schedule of the company for the financial year ended 31st March, 2006 reveals the existence of an intangible asset designated as "PMS intangibles". (e) Non-availability of segmental data : The company operates in the following segments : (1) Information technology service ; (2) Information technology enabled services; (3) Portfolio management services and segmental data was not available. 3. Goldstone Infratech Ltd. (OP/TC calculated by the Transfer Pricing Officer-29.01 per cent.): (a) Functionally different: The company is primarily involved in the provision of software development and related services comprising both onsite and offshore operations. The company is also involved in the business of media and IPTV. (b) Use of secret information : Recourse to issuance of notice under section 133(6) of the Act. (c) Forex earnings 25 per cent. of sales to be accepted. The company further has forex earnings of 0.12 per cent. which is less than the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceptance of a company as a comparable under this criterion is for the earnings to be at least 25 per cent. of the revenues. (c) Use of secret information : Recourse to issuance of notice under section 133(6) of the Act. 7. Spanco Ltd. (Earlier known as Spanco Telesystems and Solutions Ltd.) (OP/TC calculated by the Transfer Pricing Officer= 20.86 per cent.): (A) Use of secret information : Recourse to issuance of notice under section 133(6) of the Act. (B) Difference in quantitative filters: (a) Information technology enabled services revenue 75 per cent. of total operating revenues to be rejected. (b) Forex earnings 25 per cent. of sales to be accepted. The company further has forex earnings of 23 per cent. which is less than the cri- teria adopted by the Transfer Pricing Officer, hence the company does not satisfy the filter and cannot be considered for further analysis. (c) Fluctuation in revenues : The company has wildly fluctuating year-on-year revenues. Further, the company has a CAGR of 80.77 percent. for 2 year period of 2004-06. The extraordinary variations in profit- ability are indicators of several abnormal business factors which are not apparent from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .e., 31st October of the relevant assessment year. Further, rule 10C(2)(c) also clarifies that availability of data is a significant factor in conducting a comparability analysis, whether it relates to selection of the most appropriate method or arriving at a set of comparables or computing the margins of such comparables. In other words, if data for a particular comparable company for the financial year 2005-06 was not available as on 31st October 2006 (i.e., the specified date) the same cannot be used for conducting the comparability analysis. In view of the above, the stand of rejecting the company on account of unavailability of data for the year ended March 2006 is baseless since the law provides for considering any information which is publically available. (c) Trigent Software Ltd. A software company. The assessee would like to state that the company has its own website i.e. "www.trigent.com" wherein complete details relating to the functions performed by the company has been mentioned. The company is engaged in offshore development, maintenance, support and outsourcing. Its services include business analysis, requirement gathering, design, development, maintenance and sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, i.e., "www.maars-soft.com" where complete details relating to the functions performed by the company has been mentioned. The company is engaged in software consultancy with capabilities in application integration and enterprise systems. The assessee contends that the said company is engaged in the activity which is identical to the activity undertaken by the assessee. Further the Transfer Pricing Officer himself has selected R Systems International Ltd. which has software consultancy revenue. Thus the Transfer Pricing Officer erred in rejecting the said comparable company and the same needs to be accepted. (h) MYM Technologies Ltd. Software company : The assessee would like to state that the company has its own website, i.e., "www.mymtechnologies.com" where complete details relating to the functions performed by the company has been mentioned. The company is engaged in providing business solutions including business/system analysis requirement gathering and documentation, evaluation and selection of technologies to host, develop and maintain applications, prescriptive consultancy through proven design patterns and frameworks. Since the comparable's activity is identical to tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . S. No. Name of the company Objection 1. Ace Software Exports Ltd No oral objections were raised 2. Allsec Technology Ltd This was used by the assessee also. 3. Apex Knowledge Solutions P. Ltd. Oral objections as to: (i) Export earnings (ii) Issue of section 133(6) 4. Asit C. Mehta (Nucleus Netsoft) Oral objections as to ; (i) Abnormally high margin (ii) Functional profile (iii) Restructuring (iv) Related party transaction (v) Fluctuating margins (vi) Development of software Cosmic Global (Seg) No oral objections were raised 6. Datamatics Financial (seg) Oral objection as to the use of segmental data which was obtained under section 133(6) of the Act. Flextronics Software (Seg.) Oral objections on the issue of section 133(6) of the Act.8 Goldstone Infratech (seg) Oral objections as to (i) Issue of section 133(6) (ii) Difference in functional profile (iii) Export earning (iv) Abnormal profits Maple E-solution Ltd. Oral objection of ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t pointed out any defect in the comparability of such companies accept that these companies have super normal profit. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal In the case of Exxon Mobil Company India P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT as reported in [2012] 15 ITR (Trib) 353 (Mumbai) in I. T. A. No. 8311/Mum./2010 has held as under (page 390): Paragraph 22(xi) "In other words, as a general principle, both loss making unit and high profit making unit cannot be eliminated from the comparables unless, there are specific reasons for eliminating the same which is other than the general reason that a comparable has incurred loss or has made abnormal profits." A copy of the relevant pages of the OECD guidelines on this issue is also enclosed herewith. 2. Difference in functional profile In the accept/reject matrix, it is seen that verticals of information technology enabled industry was not a criteria for rejection/acceptance of a company as a comparable. The companies engaged in information technology enabled services were treated as comparables irrespective of the verticals (industries to which it caters) /horizontals (functional lines like back office operations, medical transcription, etc). It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ference. Objections on the issue of section 133(6) of the Act 1. The Transfer Pricing Officer collected information about the comparable cases using the powers under section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act. Such information which was to be used in the case of the assessee was provided to the assessee during the course of the proceedings under section 92 of the Income-tax Act (before the passing the order under section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act). The assessee has received the information either through a show-cause notice or during the course of the proceedings before the Transfer Pricing Officer. Various objections have been raised by the assessee before the Transfer Pricing Officer and the Dispute Resolution Panel on this issue. The issues to be decided by the honourable Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under the facts and circumstances of this case is as to whether the Transfer Pricing Officer was right in using the powers under section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act and while doing so has he violated the principles of natural justice ? 2. Whether the Transfer Pricing Officer was right in using the powers under section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act and while doing so has he violat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer may make a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer, if he considers it necessary or expedient so to do, with the previous approval of the Commissioner, for computation of arm's length price of the international transaction under section 92C of the Income-tax Act. Section 92CA(2), (2A), (2B) and (2C) prescribes the procedure to be adopted by the Transfer Pricing Officer on receipt of such reference. The Transfer Pricing Officer passes the order of computation of the arm's length price under section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act which is reproduced below: "92CA(3). On the date specified in the notice under sub-section (2), or as soon thereafter as may be, after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce, including any information or documents referred to in sub-section (3) of section 92D and after considering such evidence as the Transfer Pricing Officer may require on any specified points and after taking into account all relevant materials which he has gathered, the Transfer Pricing Officer shall, by order in writing, determine the arm's length price in relation to the international transaction or specified domestic transaction in accordance with sub-section (3) of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmation. It is important to note that the Transfer Pricing Officer has supplied the information so gathered to the assessee and only after giving an opportunity of being heard the transfer pricing order is passed. The Transfer Pricing Officer has issued a show-cause notice which contains all the information document which he intends to use in the case of the assessee. The assessee has also replied to this show-cause notice and only after consideration of such reply the Transfer Pricing Officer has passed the order. It is not the case of the assessee that the information collected is used without putting it across to the assessee before passing the order. 2.6 The nature of the powers under Chapter XIIIC is subject matter of many judgments of the courts in this country. The relevant decisions are discussed below (page 386) : (a) The decision of the hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of CIT v. Smt. Amiya Bala Paul [1999] 240 ITR 378 (Gauhati) can be relied upon to understand the nature of this power under section 133(6). The judgment was delivered in the context of calling for the valuation report under section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act by the Assessing Officer. The rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. 2.10 The Income-tax Act under section 92C(1) and (2) provides six methods to determine the arm's length price of an international transaction. The Central Board of Direct Taxes has prescribed rule 10B for this purpose. The relevant factors for comparability of the international transaction and a comparable transaction are given in section 92C as well as rule 10B. In the present case, transactional net margin method is used as the most appropriate method. The characteristics of the appellant, its functions, assets employed and risk undertaken are identified to find out similar cases of uncontrolled transaction in the market. Rule 10B(2)(d) also mandates the following : "conditions prevailing in the markets in which the respective parties to the transactions operate, including the geographical location and size of the markets, the laws and Government orders in force, costs of labour and capital in the markets, overall economic development and level of competition and whether the markets are wholesale or retail." 2.11 Rule 10B(2) mandates the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer to gather information about the conditions prevailing in the market including the si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re used as comparables in the appellant's own case. From the reading of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer that only after applying the filters, the Transfer Pricing Officer has resorted to issue of notices under section 133(6) to obtain certain missing information. The Transfer Pricing Officer has shared all the information which he had gathered information under section 133(6) with the assessee in respect of the accepted/rejected companies. Based on the above discussion, it can be stated that the Transfer Pricing Officer is mandated by law to collect such information and the documents. (C) The learned Departmental representative also submitted that the Transfer Pricing Officer has power to collect information under section 133(6) by virtue of the statute and the assessee cannot question the obtaining of information in the course of proceedings. He relied on various provisions to support that the Transfer Pricing Officer has powers to obtain information. He also relied on the judgment in the case of Actis Advisers P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2012] 20 ITR (Trib) 138 (Delhi) in I. T. A. No. 5277/ Del/2011 and I. T. A. No. 958/Kol/2012 for the proposition that dissection on fun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice that there is no uniformity in rejection of the assessee's comparables and selection of comparables by the Transfer Pricing Officer (a) on the reason that various filters considered by the Transfer Pricing Officer himself has not been followed and (b) that some of the companies selected by the assessee were rejected on unreasonable grounds (loss making company, etc). In order to compare a company with the assessee, and to benchmark the same, proper and appropriate functions, assets and risk analysis is required to be done and when the assessee has given detailed objections both to the Transfer Pricing Officer as well as to the Dispute Resolution Panel, it is incumbent on them to rebut the objections. It is not proper to reject all the objections without discussing them in the order. We also notice that the assessee has given detailed objections. There was no discussion at all by the Dispute Resolution Panel on these objections. As far as the working capital adjustment is concerned, how the same was arrived at could not be analysed by us. Even the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Departmental representative) has also accepted that this issue may be remitted to the Transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parable. The assessee-counsel specifically referred to the submissions made to the Transfer Pricing Officer and the Dispute Resolution Panel on this issue. We are of the opinion that principles of natural justice have not been complied with by authorities in selection of comparables and determining the arm's length price. Since, the assessee was not been given proper opportunity to examine the comparables selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer and as the objections raised by the assessee are not examined or rebutted either by the Transfer Pricing Officer or by the Dispute Resolution Panel and considering the fact that the information obtained by the Transfer Pricing Officer with reference to certain comparables and segmental data was not even made available to the assessee, we are of the opinion that the issue has to be set aside to the file of the Transfer Pricing Officer for determining the arm's length price afresh after providing the information to the assessee which was collected by the Transfer Pricing Officer. We do not intend to go into merits of arguments raised by rival parties in selection of comparables as the information collected by the Transfer Pricing Officer wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
