9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issues to Ld.AO for re-adjudication of issues in the light of the findings given in earlier years - Appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. - IT(TP)A No.3154(Bang)/2018 - - - Dated:- 6-9-2019 - Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member And Smt Beena Pillai, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sri K.R.Pradeep, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT ORDER PER SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against final assessment order dated 22/10/18 passed by Ld.JCIT under section 143(3) read with section144C of the Act, for assessment year 2014-15 on following grounds of appeal: 1. That the order of the Assessing Officer (AO), Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the order of the transfer pricing officer in so far as it is against the appellant is against the law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, equity, without jurisdiction, bad in law and all other known principles of law. 2. That the total income computed and the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Arm's Length Price difference in distribution segment ₹ 225,79,76,5/- 3 Arm's Length Price difference in the Software services segment ₹ 95,62,36,829/- 4 Arm's Length Price difference in the Support Services ₹ 11,07,62,000/- Total adjustment U/s 92CA ₹ 341,54,75,724/- (ii) The learned TPO/ DRP erred in disregarding the use of multiple year data and ought to have accepted the use of contemporaneous data as per the transfer pricing regulations due to non availability of current year data in public domain at the time of preparing the report. iii)The learned TPO/DRP erred in rejecting companies having different financial year ending or whose data does not fall within the 12 month period of impugned financial year. iv)The learned TPO/DRP erred in not considering working capi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idering Max Medical Services Ltd as a comparable rejecting the submissions / objections made by the appellant. xii.The Learned TPO/DRP erred in rejecting Central Scientific Supplies Co Ltd as a comparable. xiii. The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in failing to rely on decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case for the years 2002 - 03 to 2004 - 05 and subsequent orders of the ITAT for other assessment years. xivThe Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in adopting TNMM as the MAM ignoring the findings of ITAT in the appellant's own case for earlier years and accepted by department on the same issue. xv.The Learned AO/TPO erred in not giving effect to the directions of the DRP on foreign exchange loss. xvi.The Learned TPO / DRP have failed to apply the provisions of Rule 10B(4) (5) while selecting the criteria and filters. xvii.The learned TPO/DRP erred in rejecting the price per unit adjustment carried out by the appellant xviii..The learned TPO/DRP erred in rejecting the import duty adjustment carried out by the appellant xixThe learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Dafodils Software Ltd l2T2 India Ltd Maveric Systems Ltd xii.The Learned TPO/DRP erred in considering the following companies as comparables rejecting the submissions / objections made by the appellant. Infosys Ltd Larsen Toubro Infotech Ltd Mindtree Ltd Persistent Systems Ltd R S Software (India) Pvt Ltd Cigniti Technologies Ltd Thirdware Solution Ltd 16.i) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in making adjustment towards the Arm's Length Price difference in the Support Services/Specified Domestic Transactions amounting ₹ 1 1,07,62,000/-. ii)The Learned TPO / DRP erred in making adjustment on Support Services / specified domestic transactions overlooking the statutory reports and these reports cannot be found fault with in the absence of any cogent or contrary evidence. iii.The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in not identifying a comparable as required under law. ivThe Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in not consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Learned AO/DRP erred in restricting TDS credit to ₹ 7,78,41,810/-as against the claim of ₹ 8,66,48,067/-. Issue of interest u/s 234A C. 30.The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234B C of the Act. Further prays that the interest if any should be levied only on returned income. 31.No opportunity has been given before the levy of interest u/s 234B C of the Act. 32.Without prejudice to the appellant's right of seeking waiver before appropriate authority the appellant begs for consequentia! relief in the levy of interest u/s 234B C of the Act. 33.The appellant denies liability for interest u/s 234B on the adjustment made u/s 92CA of the Act and relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Kwality Biscuits Ltd reported in 284 ITR 434. 34.For the above and other grounds and reasons which may be submitted during the course of hearing of this appeal, the assessee requests that the appeal be allowed as prayed and justice be rendered 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with earlier years and have been set aside to Ld.TPO on the ground that TPO as well as DRP failed to consider objections raised by assessee. In respect of transfer pricing addition made by Ld.AO. It is observed that DRP/TPO for year under consideration did not consider objections raised by assessee against comparables selected by Ld.TPO and simply followed DRP directions issued for AY 2013-14. As AY: 2013-14 has been set aside by this Tribunal, we deem it fit and proper to remit the issues to file of Ld. AO/TPO for taking necessary action of passing a speaking order by granting fair opportunity to assessee of being heard. It is also observed that all these issues are pending before lower authorities and we find no reason to adjudicate these issues at this stage. Accordingly, following earlier orders passed by this Tribunal in assessee s own case, we set aside all issues to Ld.AO for re-adjudication of issues in the light of the findings given in earlier years.(Refer Annexure I) 6. In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 06-09-2019 - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
