9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t respectfully submits that : 1. The impugned order of assessment passed by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, International Taxation, Dehradun, (hereinafter referred to as 'DRP') in pursuance to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as 'DRP') under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), is a vitiated order having been passed in violation of principles natural justice and is otherwise arbitrary and is thus bad in law and is void ab-initio. 2. The DRP has erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law by issuing directions on a completely different basis purely proceeding on theoretical notions without carrying out any verification of basic facts. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ercent. 5.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.AO has erred by not computing the income attributable to the foreign company's operations carried out in India. 5.2 Without prejudice to above, the ld. AO has erred both on facts and circumstances of the case and in law by not applying the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs. Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. (292 ITR 416) that it is imperative for Revenue authorities to conduct a functional, risk and asset analysis before attribution of profits to a PE. 5.3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO has also erred by not allowing deduction of expenses incurred by Logined in supply of software upg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not. However, the DRP travelled to the issue which was not before it and held SSPL to be dependent agent of LBV. That while doing so, the assessee was not allowed any opportunity of being heard. The order of the DRP is very cryptic. (ii) That the DRP has exceeded its jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the DRP under Section 144C is limited to confirm, reduce or enhance the variation proposed in the draft order. The DRP is not entitled to make out entirely a new case which was not the case of the Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order. In support of this contention, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. Vs. Dispute Resolution Panel & Anr. - 338 ITR 416. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
