9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. The order of the DRP suffers from lack of application of mind as the DRP has not passed any speaking order and the objections of the assessee have been rejected at the threshold without any proper reasoning thereon. In this situation, we are inclined to hold that the DRP has passed a cryptic order which is not a speaking one and which has been passed without application of mind. Therefore, the impugned order of the DRP and consequential assessment order passed by the AO deserve to be quashed and we quash the same.- Case restored to DRP - Following decision of AIA Engg. Ltd. vs Dispute Resolution Panel & Others [2010 (8) TMI 743 - Gujarat High Court] - Decided in favour of assesse. - I.T.A.No. 4263/Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 28-10-2014 - S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ections raised by the assessee have not been decided and, secondly, objections raised by the assessee should be adjudicated in a juridical manner after providing due opportunity of hearing for the assessee. The AR has drawn our attention towards impugned order of the DRP dated 4.6.2010 and submitted that the assessee filed objections on 31.12.2009 which were not adjudicated properly and the DRP simply reproduced the objections of the assessee and rejected the same without any elaborate discussion, observation and finding. 3. Replying to the above legal contentions, ld. DR supported the impugned order and submitted that the objections of the assessee were similar which were submitted before the AO and the AO adjudicated them, therefore, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of 92CA(1) of the Act after taking statutory approval of Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Delhi. The Transfer Pricing Officer-I(l), New Delhi vide order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act dated 05.10.2009 has made adjustment of Rs.l,78,58,135/- being the difference attributable in Arm's Length Price' of the international transactions entered by the assessee company with Associated Concerns. An adjustment of ₹ 1,78,58,135 was therefore made by the TPO/AO. Before DRP the arguments taken before the TPO and the AO have been repeated. The DRP is of the view that the reasons given by the TPO are sound and sustainable. Therefore no interference is required in the order of the TPO/AO. 2.5 Seventh objection is restricting of depreci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
