TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Decided in favour of assesse for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No. 5359/DEL/2010 - - - Dated:- 25-3-2015 - Shri H.S. Sidhu And Shri J.S. Reddy JJ. For the Appellant : Sh. Ramit Katyal, CA Puneet Chugh, CA For the Respondent : S h. Judy James, Spl. Counsel ORDER Per H.S. Sidhu : JM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 19.10.2010 of the Assessing Officer passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T. Act, 1961 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utions 7.12% Rejected on ground of related Solutions party transactions 5. NIIT Smartserve Ltd. -20.78% Related party transactions Persistent losses 2.1 That the DRP was not justified in giving directions rejecting the objections and evidence furnished by the appellant company without passing a speaking order. 2.2 That the TPO DRP erred on facts and in law in rejecting Surevin Internet Services Limited as a comparable company holding that its turnover from call centre activities are less than ₹ 1 crore. 2.2.1That the TPO DRP erred on facts and in law in rejecting Surevin Internet Services Limited as a compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... high profit margin companies give skewed / absurd results and is not representative of the industry margin. 6. That the TPO/ DRP erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the assessee was a low risk captive service provider and appropriate adjustment in the operating profit margin of the assessee or the comparable companies was required to be made on this account in terms of rule lOB of the Income Tax Rules. 7. That the TPO/DRP erred on facts and in law in not considering financials of the associated enterprises placed on record while proposing adjustment on account of difference in arm's length price of international transactions. 7.1That on the facts and circumstances of the case, there could not be any allegation as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are that the return of income declaring NIL income after claiming deduction of ₹ 1,25,45,750/- u/s. 10A was filed on 27.11.2007 and the same was processed u/s. 143(1). The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) was sent to the assessee company. The TPO has passed the order u/s. 92CA(3) dated 29.7.2009 wherein he had made an adjustment of ₹ 1,94,59,762/- in the Arms Length Price of the assessee company. Thus, the AO made the addition of ₹ 1,94,59,762/- in the income of the assessee company being difference between the Arm s Length Price vide his draft assessment order dated 27.11.2009. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the AO, assessee filed Appeal before the DRP and the DRP vide its order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computed by the TPO in his draft assessment order. The addition has resulted on account of working of OP/OC percentage on the basis of comparables. Originally the assessee had taken 22 comparable companies in the TP documents and had subsequently reduced it to 8 comparables only. The TPO has rejected 5 of the proposed comparables and worked out the OP/OC percentage on the basis of 3 comparables arriving at the average of 28.35% and applying it to determine the adjustment figure of ₹ 1,94,59,762/-. As regards rejection of comparables proposed by the assessee the AO has given cogent and detailed reasons for the same. We have gone through the objections made by the assessee and after considering the arguments put up by the representa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
