TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive, but to remand back the matter to the file of the DRP for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law. The DRP shall pass a speaking order and address all the contentions raised by the assessee.- Decided in fvaour of assessee for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No. 3942/DEL/2010 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2015 - Shri H.S. Sidhu And Shri J.S. Reddy For the Appellant : Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. Ms. Deepali Agarwal, CA For the Respondent : S h. Judy James, Standing Counsel ORDER PER H.S. Sidhu : JM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 22.6.2010 of the Assessing Officer passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T. Act, 1961 pertaining to assessment year 2006-07. 2. The brief facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing grounds:- 1. That the assessmg officer erred on facts and m law in completing the assessment under section 144C read with sectionI43(3) of the Income-tax Act (the Act) at an income of ₹ 43,65,760 as against the returned loss of ₹ 1,23,96,776. 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in making an addition of ₹ 1,67,41,313 to the income of the appellant, on account of the alleged difference in the arm's length price of international transactions undertaken during the previous year. 3. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disregarding the internal benchmarking undertaken by the assessee for determining the arm's length price of the international transactions applying TN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant. 5. That the assessing officer erred on facts and In law in undertaking benchmarking analysis applying TNMM considering certain external comparable companies disregarding the internal comparison available on record. 6. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that internal comparison for application of TNMM undertaken by the appellant was accepted in the Transfer Pricing assessment for the preceding previous years, i.e., assessment years 2002-03,2003-04 and 2004-05. 7. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law by comparing the net operating profit margin of the appellant which is engaged in pure trading of diagnostic products with the net operating margins of companies at entity leve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to trading of diagnostic products undertaken by the appellant. 7.5 That the assessing officer alternatively ought to have considered operating profit margin of Organon (India) Ltd. at (-) 6.91% attributed to trading segment instead of the entitywide margin of 15.38%, for undertaking the benchmarking analysis. 7.6 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in considering Span Diagnostic Limited as part of comparable companies for applying TNMM, not appreciating that said company was primarily engaged in manufacturing activities, considering that only 38% of the total turnover was from trading in diagnostic products. 7.7 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that in absence of data to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 4. After hearing, Shri Neeraj Jain, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee and Shri Judy James, Ld. Departmental Representative/Standing Counsel for the Revenue, we find that the Order dated 30.4.2010 passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), New Delhi u/s. 144C of the I.T. Act, 1961 is a cryptic and non speaking one. None of the contentions raised by the assessee, have been dealt with by the DRP. Under the circumstances, we have no other alternative, but to remand back the matter to the file of the DRP for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law. The DRP shall pass a speaking order and address all the contentions raised by the assessee. 4.1 We also find that before us the assessee has f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
