9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he record of the DRP for deciding the objections on merits. Therefore, it is not a case of filing of fresh objection before the DRP but the matter was restored by the Tribunal to the record of the DRP for consideration of the objections filed by the assessee on 23.12.2010 on merits. In the case in hand, the objections were filed on 23.12.2010, therefore, the directions passed by the DRP on the objections filed by the assessee are binding on the Assessing Officer. The order of this Tribunal restoring the matter to the record of the DRP for deciding the objections filed by the assessee on merits would not change the factum of filing the objections by the assessee on 23.12.2010 and therefore the direction of the DRP dated 11.03.2014 are in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the angle of super normal profit rather than comparing the same from its functional basis. As the Mold-Tek and the assessee company both are functionally in same line of services i.e. ITes the said comparable ought not to be excluded in view of ration laid down by Special Bench, ITAT, Mumbai in case of MAERSK Global Centre (I) Pvt. Ltd. 3. The appellant prays that the order of CT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any of the grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary. 2. In the cross objections the assessee has raised the following grounds: Grounds of Objection 1. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under of comparables. v. providing the Assessee an additional set of 21 comparable companies identified through a separate process, without rejecting the search undertaken by the Assessee vi. identifying comparable companies based on the data available in the public domain at the time of conducting the assessment i.e. using non-contemporaneous data for calculating arm's length price of the international transaction entered by the Assessee vii. using single year data for undertaking a comparability analysis viii. not considering the provisions of Section 920(2) of the Incometax Act, 1961 while determining the arm's length price The Assessee craves, to consider each of the above grounds of cross objections without pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igned by the Managing Director of the assessee. Accordingly, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the DRP for consideration of objections filed by the assessee afresh. Since the matter was restored to the record of the DRP for consideration of the objections filed by the assessee, the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was also disposed of by setting aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) along with the order of the Assessing Officer and restored the proceedings to the stage of draft assessment order proposed by the Assessing Officer. The DRP passed the fresh directions dated 11.03.14 in pursuant to the order of this Tribunal whereby one of the comparables namely Mold-tek Technologies Ltd. was directed to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal of the Revenue is maintainable. 9. Having considered the rival submissions and careful perusal of the record, we find that there is no dispute that the objections against the draft order of the Assessing Officer were filed by the assessee on 23.12.2010 which were rejected by the DRP in-liminie on a technical ground that the same were not signed by the Managing Director of the assessee. On further appeal, the Tribunal restored the matter to the record of the DRP for deciding the objections on merits. Therefore, it is not a case of filing of fresh objection before the DRP but the matter was restored by the Tribunal to the record of the DRP for consideration of the objections filed by the assessee on 23.12.2010 on merits. 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2A inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.07.2012 that the Principal Commissioner of Commissioner may direct the Assessing Officer to file the appeal before this Tribunal against the order passed in pursuant to the directions of DRP on the objections filed by the assessee on or after 01.07.2012. There is no ambiguity in the provisions of section 253 that prior to insertion of sub section 2A, the Assessing Officer was not permitted to file an appeal against the directions of DRP. As it is manifest from the record as well as the facts of the case that the objections in the case of the assessee were filed before the DRP on 24.12.2010, therefore the Assessing Officer is not permitted to file the appeal against the directions of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
