9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order passed by the AO had no sanctity of law and was nothing but a waste paper. AO observed that when any order from TPO would be received after passing of the impugned assessment order, the impugned assessment order would be rectified. This type of action is neither recognized, nor justifiable in the eyes of law. Only because the concerned TPO had failed to follow the directions of the DRP and failed to frame assessment order as per statutory provisions, that does not entitle the AO to frame the assessment order, for the sake of formality and leave the issue open so as to get it rectified as and when the order from the TPO as per directions of DRP will be received and thereby opening the limitation period to frame the assessment ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the assessment dated 31.10.2016 passed u/s 144C(13) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was never communicated to the assessee, rather, the same was communicated on the request of the Authorized Representative of the assessee vide letter dated 4.3.2019, a copy of the letter is also placed on record. That the assessee finally received the aforesaid order on 18.3.2019 and thereafter the assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer before the Tribunal on 13.01.2017. Further, that under the bonafide belief that an order u/s 154 is an extension of the order passed u/s 143(3) r/w 144C(13) and, thus, an appeal should be filed against an order passed u/s 154 of the Act, the assessee filed the appeal against section 154 order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der as the Ld. DRP erred in confirming the arbitrary transfer pricing adjustment made by the Ld. AO/Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. TPO') to the International Transaction pertaining to provision of IT enabled services ('ITeS segment') entered into by the Appellant with its Associated Enterprise ('AE') 3. The Ld TPO/Ld AO and Ld. DRP erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by Rs.53,69,199 holding that the international transaction pertaining to its provision of IT enabled services ('ITeS segment') does not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Act and in doing so have grossly erred in: 3.1 the Ld. TPO/ Ld. AO erred in not appreciating that none of the conditions set out in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant; 3.7 ignoring the business/ commercial reality that since the Appellant is remunerated on an arm's length cost plus basis, i.e. it is compensated for all its operating costs plus a pre- agreed mark-up based on a benchmarking analysis, the Appellant undertakes minimal business risks as against comparable companies that are fullfledged risk taking entrepreneurs, and by not allowing a risk adjustment to the Appellant on account of this fact; and entrepreneurs, any by allowing a risk adjustment to the Appellant on account of this fact; and 3.8 not allowing the Appeallant the benefit of the +/- 5% range available to the appeallant as per the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act; and 3.9 disregarding judicial pronouncements in I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (13) Upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5), the Assessing Officer, shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 [or section 153B], the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further invited our attention to the last paragraph of the impugned assessment order which for the sake is reproduced as under: The Hon'ble DRP was of the view that the average of opening and closing balance of the inventories and of trade receivable/payable, trade debtors/creditors, for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
