9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sr. DR ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present stay petition has been filed by applicant seeking extension of stay of outstanding demand of ₹ 11,96,68,110/- inclusive of interest. 2. Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee is a company owned by Sierra Communication International LLC with Avaya US as ultimate holding company. It has been submitted that assessee operates in four segments being; software services segment, back office support services segment, marketing support services segment and maintenance and technical services segment. 2.1 Ld. Counsel submitted that for the year under consideration, assessee filed its return of income on 28/11/2014 declaring total income of ₹ 148,64,57,280/-, under normal provisions of the Act. The book profits u/s 115 JB of the Act was determined at ₹ 141,72,78,834/-. The return of income of assessee was selected for scrutiny and draft assessment order was issued by Ld.AO, wherein an adjustment made by Ld.TPO amounting to ₹ 68,65,52,173/- was proposed in addition to ₹ 23,58,11,169/- on account of difference of income offered to tax by assessee in the return of income vis-a-vis amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction pertaining to provision of software services by the Appellant and holding that the said international transaction is not at an arm s length without sharing the detailed accept reject matrix for selection or rejection of companies evaluated by him. 3.2 That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/Hon ble DRP has erred in rejecting the Appellant s claim to use multiple year data for computing the arm s length price and, instead, has adhered to the use of single year (i.e. FY 2013-14) updated data to conclude the ALP of the international transaction which was not available to the Appellant at the time of undertaking transfer pricing study required to be maintained u/s92D of the Act. 3.3 That on fact of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/Hon ble DRP has erred in application of inappropriate filters such as different financial year end and export service income filter for identifying companies comparable to the Appellant. 3.4 That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld.TPO/Hon ble DRP have erred, in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, by wrongfully rejecting comparable companies and including certain noncomparable companies to the final se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited and Maveric Systems Limited as comparable to the Appellant in relation to the international transaction pertaining to provision of software services. 3.5 That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/Hon ble DRP have erred, in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, by selecting companies which are earning supernormal profits as compared to the Appellant. 3.6 That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/Hon ble DRP have erred, in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, by treating foreign exchange gain/loss as non-operating items while determining the ALP of the subject international transaction. 3.7 That on the fact of the case and in law, the Ld.TPO/Hon ble DRP has erred in not allowing a risk adjustment to the Appellant on account of the fact that the Appellant is a captive service provider for its associated enterprises and is remunerated on a cost plus basis irrespective of the outcome of the services provided and hence undertakes no market risk, service liability risk, credit and collection risk as against comparable companies that are the full-fledged risk taking entrepreneurs. TP adjustment in relation to no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tement for AY 2014-15. Non-grant of additional TDS credit amounting to INR 94,054 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in not granting the additional TDS credit amounting to INR 94,054, without appreciating the fact that corresponding income has been offered to tax by the Appellant in the return of income filed for AY 2014-15. Levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in levying interest u/s 234A and section 234B of the Act. Initiation of penalty proceedings 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. The Appellant prays that appropriate relief be granted based on the above grounds of appeal and the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Before us, Ld. Counsel su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
