9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n TPO is directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the detailed submissions/documentary evidences furnished by the assessee. Assessee is directed to furnish the details of services utilised by it for which it has made the payments to its AEs. Assessee is further directed to demonstrate what benefits it has received from its AEs. TPO is directed to consider the same and decide the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - Sh. N. K. Saini, Vice President and Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Judicial Member For The Assessee : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. And Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. For The Revenue : Sh. Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -14 ignoring the submissions and evidence furnished by Appellant for availing management and support services by the Appellant from its AE; and d. Undertaking the determination of ALP of the said transactions using Comparable Uncontrolled Price ( CUP ) method as NIL on an arbitrary basis without following the methodology of applying CUP method as prescribed under Section 92C(1) of the Act read with Rule 10B(1)(a) of the Rules i.e. identifying any transaction(s) as prescribed in Section 92F(ii) of the Act; Other grounds 3. The learned AO has erred in not granting full credit of Withholding tax credit as claimed by the Appellant in its return of income. 4. The learned AO has grossly erred in initiating pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar issue having identical facts was a subject matter of the assessee s appeals for the preceding assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 in ITA Nos. 408 7328/Del/2017 respectively wherein the matter has been restored to the file of the TPO. The relevant findings have been given in paras 14 to 22 of the order dated 31.07.2018 which read as under: 14. Before us, the ld. AR vehemently stated that the TPO did not give any justification in rejecting the comparables of the assessee. It is the say of the Id. AR that in the cases of comparables, Nu Tek India Limited and Teracom Limited, the TPO has simply mentioned that these are functionally different. The Id. AR continued by stating that in the cases of Himachal Futuristic Communications Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PO for carrying out a fresh search and selection of comparables having functions similarity to the segment of sales and post sales support and compute the adjustment accordingly as per law. Needless to mention that the assessee shall be provided sufficient opportunity of hearing. 17. We find that the facts of the year under consideration appear to be similar to the facts of A.Y 2008-09. In our considered opinion, the comparables selected by the assessee and also by the TPO are functionally different from the functions of the assessee. In the light of findings given in A.Y 2008-09, we are of the view that both the assessee and TPO must carry out fresh search for selection of comparables having functions, similarity in the segment sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further directed to demonstrate what benefits it has received from its AEs. The TPO is directed to consider the same and decide the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 22. As mentioned elsewhere, the issue relating to provisions of management and support services is common in ITA Nos. 7328 408/DEL/2017. Both these appeals are disposed of accordingly. 6. So, respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order dated 31.07.2018 in ITA Nos. 408 7328/Del/2017 for the assessment years 2012- 13 2013-14 respectively, the issues raised in the present appeal are remanded back to the file of the TPO to be decided as has been directed in the said order. 7. Since, we have disposed off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
