TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected against the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the AY 2008-09 on 29.10.2012 and order dated 29.11.2013 for the AY 2009-10, giving effect to the order of the DRP-I u/s 144C(5) of the Act. As the issues arising in both the appeals are common, for the sake of convenience, they heard together and disposed of by way of this common order. 2. The facts are giving in paras 2, to 2.3 of the TPO order, which is extracted for ready reference: 2. Taxpayer s profile 2.1 Name The assessee, Green Filed Online Pvt. Ltd. is primarily engaged in providing contract IT and related services to Greenfield Online Inc. USA (Greenfield US). During FY 2007-08, the taxpayer has also provided marke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the directions issued by the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Ld. DRP') is a vitiated order as the Ld. DRP erred both on facts and in law in confirming part of the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer ('AO') to the Appellant's income by issuing an order without appropriate application of mind. 2. The Ld. AO/ Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO) and the Ld. DRP erred in ignoring the fact that the reference made u/s 143(2) of the Act by the Ld. AO suffers from jurisdictional error as the Ld. AO did not record any reasons in the draft assessment order based on which it was concluded that it was 'necessary or expedient' to refer the matter to the Ld. TPO for computation of the Arm's Length Pric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plied by the Appellant; 4.3 disregarding multiple year prior years' data as used by the Appellant in the TP documentation and holding that current year i.e. Financial Year 2007-08 data for comparable companies should be used despite the fact that the same was not necessarily available to the Appellant at the time of preparing its TP documentation; 4.4 rejecting comparability analysis in the TP documentation/Appellant's fresh search and instead, conducting a fresh comparability analysis based on the application of erroneous and inappropriate quantitative and qualitative filters in determining the ALP for the Appellant's international transactions of provision of contract IT services and provision of marketing support servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. That the Ld. AO has grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271 of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. 6. That the Ld. AO has grossly erred in levying an interest u/s 234B of the Act to the taxable income of the Appellant. 4. We have heard Shri Ashwani Taneja, Ld. counsel for the assessee and Shri Judy James, Ld. Standing Counsel on behalf of the Revenue. 5. Shri Ashwani Taneja, Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that though a number of grounds have been raised in this appeal, he would be only disputing the inclusion of certain comparables by the TPO for determining the Arm s Length Price. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee s own case in the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al at Para 25 at Page 29 of the order and the issue of KALS Information Systems Ltd. (Segmental) was dealt with at Para 27.1 at Page 32 of that order. Similarly, the issue of Tata Elxsi Ltd. being treated as a comparable was discussed at Para 39.1 and 39.2 at pages 39 40 of that order and the issue of Wipro Ltd. being treated as a comparable was discussed at Para 41 pages 40 41 of the order for the AY 2007-08. 9. Ld. counsel for the assessee submits that if these comparables are eliminated from the list of comparables, then the Arm s Length Price worked out by the assessee would be the same as Arm s Length Price arrived at by the Revenue. As the assessee felt that it would get relief on this count, the Ld. counsel did not advance any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion was given to both authorities and was before the authorities and that the same was not considered. He argued that the rejection of the claim of the assessee for working capital adjustment is against the proposition of law laid down by various Tribunals. We find that the assessee made detailed submissions before the lower authorities on this issue, which we do not extract for the sake of brevity. Suffice to say that the contentions raised by the assessee have not been dealt with by the TPO as well as the DRP. The propositions of law laid down by the Tribunals on the issue of working capital adjustment have also not been considered. 15. Thus, it would be appropriate to set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer/T.P.O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
