9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd to the assessee. Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. - IT(TP)A No.2525/Bang/2017 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2018 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT ORDER Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the AO passed consequent to the directions of the DRP inter alia on the following grounds:- 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 tax computed is hereby disputed. 3. That the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer is without jurisdiction, against the law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, equity and all other known principles of law. 4. That the findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.467,84,14,615/- 13.i) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in making adjustment towards the royalty for use of technology amounting Rs.10,82,48,490/- without determining the comparable transaction in the public domain as prescribed under the Act and Rules. ii) The AO/TPO/DRP erred in making adjustment towards the trade mark / trade name royalty amounting Rs.1,15,34,426/- without determining the comparable transaction in the public domain as prescribed under the Act and Rules. iii) The Learned AO/TPO/DRP have failed to identify a comparable in terms of Rule 10B(3). iv) 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. 14. i) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in making adjustment towards the Arm's Length Price difference in the distribution segment amounting 419,24,94,988/-. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore 01.04.2013. iii) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in not identifying a comparable as required under law. iv) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in not considering the details, information and evidences furnished by the assessee. OTHER ISSUES/ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES 17. The Learned AO / DRP erred in disallowing provision for obsolescence of Inventory amounting to Rs. 18,04,89,926/-. 18. The Learned AO / DRP erred in disallowing foreign exchange fluctuation loss amounting to Rs. 43,59,719/-. 19. The Learned AO / DRP erred in disallowing the sum of Rs. 15,99,635/- as provision for contingent liability. 20. The Learned AO / DRP erred in adding back to book profit the sum of Rs. 15,99,635/- in accordance with clause (c) of Explanation (1) to section 115JB of the Act. 21. The Learned AO / DRP erred in disallowing provision for foreseeable losses amounting to Rs. 1,28,33,674/- 22. The Learned AO / DRP erred in adding back to book profits the provision for foreseeable losses of Rs. 1,28,33,674/- in accordance with clause (c) of Explanation (1) to section 115JB of the Act. 23. The Learned AO / DRP erred in making disallowanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest u/s 234B of the Act. Further prays that the interest if any should be levied only on returned Income. 38. No opportunity has been given before the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. 39. Without prejudice to the appellant's right of seeking waiver before appropriate authority the appellant begs for consequential relief in the levy of interest u/s 234B. 40. 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 8iscuits Ltd reported in 284 ITR 434. 41. 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. During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention that before the TPO certain evidence could not be filed due to paucity of time, but before the DRP the assessee has filed all the relevant evidence to justify his claim raised before the DRP. But the DRP did not admit the additional evidence filed before them and they confirmed the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
