9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") amounting to Rs. 6,19,19,430/- * The learned TPO/ DRP/ AO erred in considering the arm's length price to be "Nil" for the following payments made by Safran Engineering Services India Private Limited to its associated enterprise: - towards dedicated program manager for the benefit of Safran Engineering Services India Private Limited - Rs. 85,75,192 - towards information technology services - Rs. 1,33,73,214 - towards salary cost of deputed managing director - Rs. 12,758,352 - towards cost of support services provided by associated enterprise - Rs. 27,212,672 * The learned TPO/ DRP/ AO erred in not accepting the arm's length justification of the above mentioned paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transfer pricing assessment as the transfer pricing order contained certain facts which do not pertain to Safran Engineering Services India Private Limited. B. Re-computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act. * The learned AO has erred in re-computing the deduction under section 10A of the Act at Rs. 5,28,25,283 as against the claim of Rs. 5,75,10,771. * The learned AO has erred in reducing the telecommunication expenses of Rs. 37,72,598/- and expenditure in foreign currency of Rs. 3,15,36,705/- from Export Turnover alone. The learned AO ought to have reduced the same from the Total Turnover when they have reduced the same from Export Turnover. * The learned AO has erred in not relying on the decision of the Jurisdicti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the AY 2006-07 which is immediately preceding the impugned assessment year with the submission that in the earlier AY, the evidence filed by the assessee was not examined by the TPO and the Tribunal has restored the matter to the AO/TPO with a direction to readjudicate the issue and re-determine the ALP in accordance with law. Similar is the position for the impugned assessment year as the TPO has not taken into account the evidence filed by the assessee before him. Therefore, it was contended that the matter should be restored back to the TPO/AO to re-examine the evidence filed by the assessee and after having analysed the same, the ALP may be determined. 4. The ld. DR did not object to this proposition as he admitted that some eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoices raised by the AE on the assessee, we find that the documents filed by the assessee as evidence before the DRP and also before us in support of his contention that the AE has rendered services to the assessee for which management fee has been paid has not been verified or considered by them. When the assessee claims that the assessee has paid the management fee to the AE, no doubt the burden is on the assessee to prove that it has received services from its AE. But when the assessee has produced such material before any of the authorities below it is also the duty of the authorities to consider the same before coming to any conclusion on merits. In view of the same, without verification of proper evidence, it not justified to come ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
