9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdiction, against the law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, equity and all other known principles of law. 4. That the findings, reasons, conclusions and directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u/s 144C are unsustainable in law requires to be set aside. Consequently the additions based on such directions also requires to be set aside. 5. The DRP erred in not considering the relevant materials, evidences, data and relevant law. The directions issued are without application of mind. 6. That the Order / Directions of the AO / DRP violates the principles of judicial discipline as the binding nature of the orders of the higher appellate authorities have been totally ignored. 7. That the order of the DRP and the directions given therein are bad in law and not as per law requires to be cancelled. 8. That the AO/TPO/DRP erred in not providing adequate and sufficient opportunity as required under law thus violating the principle of natural justice, hence on this ground alone the orders requires to be annulled. ISSUE OF TRANSFER PRICING 9. That the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer is without jurisdiction, against the law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;s Length Price difference in tne distribution segment amounting 225,79,76,895/-. ii. The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in making adjustment on transactions beyond AE transactions, thus, the adjustment proposed includes non AE transactions. iii.The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in wrongly adopting the financial results of the assessee. iv.The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in comparing the appellant's distribution margin with comparables which are not in the business of trading/distribution. v.The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in not following their own orders passed for the earlier asst. years on this issue. vi.The selection of the method by the Learned AO / TPO / DRP is not as per law. vii.The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in not granting the variances deduction envisaged in the Act and Circular. viii.The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in not carrying out the adjustments as required under law as well as the facts. ix.The Learned AO/TPO/DRP have failed to identify a comparable in terms of Rule 10B(3). x.The Learned TPO/DRP erred in rejecting certain comparables on unsustainable and untenable grounds/reasons while considering comparables which failed to meet the filt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as required under law. vii) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in not granting the variances deduction envisaged in the Act and Circular. The Learned TPO / DRP have failed to apply the provisions of Rule 10B(4)&(5) while selecting the criteria and filters. viii)The learned TPO / DRP erred in rejecting R & D expense more than 3% on turnover to eliminate companies engaged in R & D activities. ix)The learned TPO / DRP erred in applying the software development service income threshold of 25% to sales to select comparable companies. x)The learned TPO / DRP erred in rejecting the comparable companies having ratio of employee cost to sales less than 25%. xi)The Learned TPO/DRP erred in rejecting the following companies as comparables rejecting the submissions / objections made by the appellant. Akshay Software Technologies Ltd Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd 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) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia) of the Act. 27.The above disallowances have been made without providing sufficient and adequate opportunity as required under law and the Act. On this ground alone the above disallowances requires to be deleted. 28.The Learned AO/DRP erred in restricting relief u/s 90 of the Act to Rs. 14,31,191/- as against the claim of Rs. 55,64,950/-. . 29.The Learned AO/DRP erred in restricting TDS credit to Rs. 7,78,41,810/-as against the claim of Rs. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
