TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Assessment Order dated 08/12/2008 passed u/s 143(3)/144C/92CA (4) of the Income Tax Act, for Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 11,96,61,358/- on account of arm s length price. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 64,83,213/- on account of provision for expenses. 3. The assessee company is engaged in the business of designing of semiconductor products, software and electronic systems and providing sales Date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details of liability as shown in the balance sheet. From the details furnished it was observed by the Assessing Officer that there are miscellaneous expenses liabilities to the extent of ₹ 64,83,213/- which has been reversed in the next year. The assesee was therefore asked to explain as below: Miscellaneous expenses liabilities to the extent of ₹ 64,83,213/- has been debited which is reversed in next year but the liabilities has not been crystallized during the year, why it should not disallowed. The assessee s representative attended and submitted that the miscellaneous liabilities represent full and final settlement of employees and the payment to the extent of RS. 58,84,639/- was made in June, 2005. The Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2013 TII-12-HC-Del-TP (Del. HC) ii) Capital IQ Information Systems (India) (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 32 taxman.com 21 (Hyd Tri.) iii) CIT vs. Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P) Ltd. 215 Taxman 539 (Del. HC) iv) ACIT vs. Maersk Global Service Centre (India) (P) Ltd. 133 ITD 543 (Mum Tri.) v) Tevapharm (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 50 SOT 150 (Mum Tri.) vi) Carlyle India Advisors (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 53 SOT 267 (Mum Tri.) vii) ST Microelectronics (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 15 ITR 410 (Del. Tri.) viii) ST Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 2016-TII-15-HC-DEL-TP (Del. HC) As regards Ground No. 2, the Ld. AR submitted as per Rule 27 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that the claim of the assessee company relating to Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Infosys. He has done so without evaluating their comparability in terms of their functional and risk profile, further the TPO has also not analysed the differences in the risk profile as well as the size and the nature of operations of the Appellant with his two selected comparable i.e. Satyam and Infosys. Thus, the approach adopted by the TPO wherein, he has selected only two comparable companies without adopting a logical search process cannot be considered as a valid transfer pricing analysis. In view of the same I am inclined to accept the comparability analysis as conducted by the appellant. The appellant during the course of assessment proceedings had conducted fresh benchmarking based on the updated (for FY 2005-06) financ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
