9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent legal position, which may result into fresh consideration of those comparables which were rejected earlier for some reasons. - IT (TP) A No.457(Bang) 2015, AND IT (TP) A No. 441-(Bang) 2015 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2016 - Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member, And Shri A. K. Garodia, Accountant Member For the Revenue : Mrs Neera Malhora, CIT For the Assessee : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ORDER PER SHRI A.K.GARODIA, AM These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue which are directed against the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143 (3) r.w.s.144C of the IT Act, 1961 dated 30-01-2015, as per the directions of the DRP. 2. The grounds raised by the revenue are as under; 1) The o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Tata Elxsi Limited 349 ITR 98 has not been accepted by the department and an appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7) The Hon'ble DRP has erred in applying 0% RPT. The order of the Hon'ble DRP is in itself contradictory. It has discussed why 0% RPT should not be taken on the other hand the Hon'ble DRP itself has directed the TPO to adopt the same. 8) For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the order of the DRP be reversed and that of the AO be restored. 9) The appellate craves to leave, to add, to alter, to amend or delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal. 3. The grounds raised by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olding that the Appellant's international transaction is not at arm's length; 4.The learned AOI TPO erred, in law and in facts, by determining the arm's length marginal price using only FY 2010-11 data which was not available to the Appellant at the time of complying with the transfer pricing documentation requirements; 5.The learned AO/TPO erred in rejecting certain comparable companies by applying the following quantitative and qualitative filters: a.The learned AO/TPO erred, in law and in facts, by rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the Appellant for having different accounting year (i.e. companies having accounting year other than March 31 or companies whose financial statements were for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices transaction; 9.The learned AO/TPO has erred, in law and in facts, by accepting I rejecting companies based on unreasonable comparability criteria; Companies rejected by TPO based on unreasonable comparability criteria Companies having RPT transactions to sales in excess of 0% a) Akshay Software Technologies Limited b) Saven Technologies Limited c) Cat Technologies Limited d) Evoke Technologies Pvt Ltd Companies having forex earnings less than 75% e) Cigniti Technologies Limited f) Maveric Systems Ltd Companies rejected for having a different Financial Year Ending g) Helios Matheson Information Technology Ltd h) Caliber Point Business Solutions Limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the law . 4. It was agreed by both sides that DRP has applied 0% RPT filter, whereas this is the settled position by now that the RPT filter should be applied at the rate of 15% and in this view of the matter, it was agreed by both sides that the entire matter may be restored back to the file of the AO/TPO for a fresh decision by applying RPT filter of 15% because by changing this RPT filter from 0% to 15%, several new comparables will have to be considered which are excluded by the DRP by applying 0% filter and in that event, those comparables have to be examined on other aspects. It was also submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that if the matter is restored back to the file of the AO/TPO, then such restoration should be with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
