9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod selectively. Therefore, in our view, TPO should calculate the average of collection for the year under consideration of all the transactions carried on by the assessee. In case, it is found that such collection period is beyond 90 days, he can do the adjustment only to the extent it crossed 90 days. TPO cannot calculate the collection period selectively for those which are beyond 90 days. Therefore, we remit this issue back to the TPO to calculate the average collection period for this AY and determine the adjustment as per the above directions. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 1746/Hyd/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2019 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member Assessee by: Shri Raghnathan S. Revenue by: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai ORDER S. Rifaur Rahman, A.M.: This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order passed u/s 143(3) rws 92CA(3) 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) for the AY 2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case are, asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amount (in Rs.) MAM PLI Margin of taxpayer Margin of comparables Provision of software development and support services 1,603,106,022 TNMM OP/OC 18.45% 12.74% Professional charges paid 11,30,407 Communication charges paid 54,65,396 Training fees paid 40,544 Travel and per diem reimbursable expenses CUP The TPO noted that with regard to software development and support services and other charges paid, the assessee has adopted TNMM using NCP as the PLI as the most appropriate method. The assessee had used Prowess and C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... @ 14.45% on the receivables received beyond the due date, which comes to ₹ 1,07,27,259/- as per the table at page 5 of his order. Thus, the arm s length price of interest on receivables is ₹ 1,07,27,259/- and the shortfall of ₹ 1,07,27,259/- is treated towards adjustment. 4. When the assessee carried the objections before the DRP, the DRP directed the AO to apply the applicable interest as per domestic term deposit rates of SBI prevailing for the FY 2012-13. 5. As per the directions of DRP, the AO computed the interest on receivables at ₹ 48,84,781/- as against 1,07,27,259/- computed by the TPO. 6. Aggrieved by the order of DRP, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in contrary to law, the assessment order ('Final Order') issued under section 143(3) read with section ('r.w.s.') 92CA(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') passed by the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16(1), Hyderabad ('Ld. AO') dated 15 September 2017 in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The approach is contrary to the principal and terms allowed under Advance Pricing Agreement (' AP A') signed on 29th August 2016 which is applicable for the subsequent years, wherein inter alia the weighted average period of realization of invoices from its Associated Enterprises (' AE') allowed is within 94 days. Computation of interest liability under section 234B and 234C of the Act 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in levying interest liability under section 234B and 234C of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add to/alter/amend/ substitute any of the above grounds of appeal, at the time, before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Appellate authority to decide this appeal according to law. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee relied on the order of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Dhanush Infotech Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 2082/Hyd/2017, order dated 17/10/2018, a copy of which is available on record. 8. Ld. DR, on the other hand, filed synopsis wherein it was stated as under: 4. Ground No: 1 is general in nature. With regard to ground no: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od. The DRP determined the interest under the CUP being the domestic TDR rate of SBI and the same has to be applied to each transaction. With regard to the fact that the approach of the TPO/DRP is contrary to the approach of APA dated 29/08/2016 which is applicable to subsequent years, it is submitted that as clarified by CBDT in Circular No: 10/2015, rollback is not available in cases where revised return is not filed. Also, the appellant does not have the option to selectively choose rollback for one year. The roll back in such case would apply to all four years. As per the explanation, the international transaction in receivables existed for all earlier four years also. Also, as per Rule 10MA of IT Rules, the appellant has to make an application for rollback in the specified form and cannot seek selective rollback without making such application before the competent authority. The decision in the case of Lotus Footwear Enterprises cited by the appellant is not applicable because the said decision only sets aside the matter to be decided as per law with regard to nature of the said assessee for A.Y 2009-10. With regard to the decision in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
