9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of Rs. 129,32,857 to the returned income on account of adjustment to the arm's length price of the 'international transactions' of call centre services on the basis of the order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) & as per the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. That the DRP erred on facts and in law in giving the direction confirming the rejection of the following comparable companies identified by the assessee: S.No. Name of company OP/OC% Reasons for rejection 1 Surevin Internet 3.47% Low revenue. Call centre Services Ltd. activities amounting to Rs. 91.24 lacs as against filter of 1 crore. 2. Shreejal Info Hubs Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outsourcing company Limited has been rejected then ALLSEC Technologies limited an accepted company also ought to have been rejected. 2.5 Whether merely because a company has incurred loss I can it be excluded from the comparables ? 2.6 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case I the Learned TPO & DRP were not justified in rejecting NIIT smart Serve & First Solution as comparable companies. 3.That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. TPO & DRP ought to have included B2K corp. as a comparable company for benchmarking the arm's length price. 4. That the DRP failed to consider the fresh transfer pricing study submitted by the Appellant company. 5. That the TPO &DRP erred on facts and in law in not appreciatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on amortization of preliminary expenses incurred by the assessee on the issue of shares, holding that the assessee in not an industrial undertaking and is not entitled to these expenses under section 35D of the Act. 11.That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing, under section 35D of the Act, an expense of Rs. 4,85,591/- incurred by the assessee as preoperative expenses, holding that the assessee company has already claimed expenses to the extent allowable, in earlier years. 12. That the assessment order framed is bad in law. 13. That the Levy of interest u/s234B is excessive & without authority of law. 14. That the appellant craves for leave to add, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal mentioned above at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irections of the DRP. He took us through the order of the DRP and submitted that this order is cryptic and non speaking. He pointed out that none of the contentions raised in the appeal were addressed by the DRP. Hence, he submitted that the assessment order framed is bad in law. 5. On the other hand Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the order of the DRP and requested to uphold the same. 6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. At the threshold, we find that the Ld. DRP vide its order dated 30.8.2010 passed u/s. 144C of the I.T. Act has adjudicated the issue as under:- "The objections relates to addition of Rs. 1,94,59,762/- on account of adjustment of the arm's length prices of inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. DRP has simply mentioned that the AO has given cogent and detailed reasons for the same. In our considered opinion, the finding given by the Ld. DRP is not a speaking one and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we cancel the assessment order dated 19.10.2010 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T. Act and remit back all the issues to the file of the Ld. DRP with the directions to properly consider and examine the issues in detail and give a finding on each of the contention raised by the assessee in its appeal and pass a speaking order thereon.
8. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25/3/2015. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
