9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Development of website and towards legal and professional fees allowability - HELD THAT:- DRP has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to verify the submission of the assessee in respect of the nature of the expenses and in case the professional expenses referred to by the assessee are not covered under Section 35DD, then allow the charges paid for development of website and towards legal and professional fees as revenue expenditure. There is no need to interfere with the said directions of the DRP. Thus, Ground Nos. 3 and 4 are dismissed. Exclusion of Global Procurement Consultants Limited and the issue of inclusion of BVG India Limited and Office Care Services Limited, both these aspect has to be looked into by the TPO as the functional profile set out by the assessee before us, it will be appropriate to remand back this issue to the file of the TPO/AO to verify in the light og decision of Tribunal in A.Y. 2010-11. Thus, matter is remanded back to the file of the TPO/AO. - I.T.A. No. 369/DEL/2016 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2019 - SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. Mukesh Butani, Sh. Shreyash Shah, Sh. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,037. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble Dispute Resolution Panel ( DRP ) / AO / Transfer Pricing Officer ( TPO ) erred in providing a partial relief of INR 2,874,855 against the transfer pricing adjustment of INR 5,482,095 proposed by the TPO in respect of the international transaction relating to business support services 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the facts and in law, the DRP / AO / TPO while re-determining arm s length price with respect to the international transaction relating to business support services have erred in (a) not fully appreciating the business model, functional, asset and risk analysis, (b) not accepting the economic analysis done in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Rules and (c) making several observations / findings based on incorrect interpretation of law and contrary to facts of the case. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP / AO / TPO have erred, in arbitrarily rejecting certain functionally comparable companies identified by the Appellant on a subjective / arbitrary basis, inter alia, using unreasonable comparability criterio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essional charges of ₹ 1,80,09,606/- along with supporting evidences were called. A reference u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was made to the TPO. The TPO vide order dated 21.01.2015 proposed addition of ₹ 54,82,095 being shortfall adjustment u/s 92CA of the Act. A draft assessment order was passed on 17.03.2015. The assessee company filed objection before the DRP. The DRP vide order dated 23.10.2015, issued certain directions to the Assessing Officer/TPO. The assessee filed additional grounds of objection and the DRP vide direction dated 05.11.2015 directed the Assessing Officer to verify the submission of the assessee in respect of the nature of the expenses and in case the professional expenses referred to by the assessee are not covered under Section 35DD, then allow the charges paid for development of website and towards legal and professional fees as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 27.11.2015 sustained only addition of ₹ 26,07,240/- towards the transfer pricing adjustment on account of arm s length pricing of assessee s international transaction with its AEs. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order and the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . as the company has failed the service income filter. As regards the exclusion of Global Procurement Consultants Ltd., the Ld. DR submitted that this comparable is functionally comparable as it provides a comprehensive range of procurement advisory services and allied activities. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on records. It is pertinent to note that as regards Revenue s appeal is concerned all the comparables contested by the revenue are already excluded in case of Adidas Technical services (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT and the Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 directed the TPO to decide the issue in controversy in the light of the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Adidas Technical services (P.) Ltd. and allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purpose. The assessee company s profile in the present year also remains the same to that of earlier A.Y. 2010-11. The Ld. AR pointed out for each of the comparables and its functional profile along with FAR analysis from the records. After going through the records, it can be seen that the DRP has rightly excluded these comparables. Thus, there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
