TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessee is directed against the Order of the Ld. Assessing Officer passed u/s. 143(3) read with section 144C of the I.T. Act dated 28.10.2010 and pertains to assessment year 2006-07. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Based on facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in completing the assessment at an assessed income of ₹ 53,55,74,554 as against the income of ₹ 28,52,36,663 returned by the appellant. 2.1 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel CORP') has erred in confirming the draft assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 C Act') incorporating the order under section 92CA(3) of the Act issued by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer resulting in an addition of ₹ 14,08,10,625 to the total income of the appellant on account of adjustment in the arm's length price ( ALP') of the international transaction entered by the appellant with its associated enterprise. 2.2 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer / Assessing Officer has e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing certain comparable companies identified by the appellant using onsite revenues greater than 75 percent of the onsite revenues as a comparability criterion. 2.10 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer / Assessing Officer has erred by exercising his powers under section 133(6) of the Act to obtain information which was not available in public domain and relying on the same for comparability purposes. 2.11 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer / Assessing Officer has erred, in law and facts, by including reimbursement of expenses in the total cost base and revenue of the software services division. 2.12 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer / Assessing Officer has erred by not providing the appellant any opportunity of being heard in certain cases. 2.13 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer / Assessing Officer has erred by not taking into consideration foreign exchange fluctuation gain/ loss and provisions written back in computing the operating margins of the compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and in fact, in not allowing deduction for provisions utilized / released during Assessment Year 2006- 2007, which were disallowed by the learned assessing officer in earlier assessment years. 6. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and In fact, 111 limiting the credit for tax deducted at source to ₹ 32,389,317/- as against ₹ 39,038,743 claimed by the appellant in the Return of Income, despite specific direction in this regard by the Hon'ble DRP. 7. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and in fact in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, against the appellant. 8. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and in fact in levying interest under section 234B and section 234D of the Act. 9.1 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and in fact in levying interest under section 234C of the Act in the computation sheet despite the fact that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on basis of the TPO's order, the AO has recomputed the deduction allowable u/s 10A of the Act, 1961 at ₹ 10,05,44,163/ , after reducing data link charges of ₹ 53,34,082/- for delivery of computer software outside India. The AO has also added an amount of ₹ 10,84,21,19/- u/s 41(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, as remission of a trading liability. 5. Against the above order, the assessee filed the objections before the DRP. On majority of the issues the DRP agreed with the T.P.O. Pursuant to the DRP s directions the AO computed the taxable income at ₹ 53,55,74,554/-. This included transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 14,08,10,625/-. 6. Against the above order the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. Assessee has taken up a preliminary objections that the AO framed an order in the name of non-existing company M/s Nokia Siemens Network India Pvt. Ltd. (NSNIPL) which merged with the Nokia Siemens Network Pvt Ltd. on account of the order of the Hon ble High Court dated 9.1.2009 under which the merger took place with effect from 1.4.2008. Therefore, the company has assessed ceased to exist on 1.4.2008. The assessment order was passed on 28.10.2010, muc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to answer any questions or provide any clarifications that you may have in this regard. Yours faithfully, For Nokia Siemens Networks Private Limited Authorised Signatory Copy to: ( 1) The Commissioner of Income Tax - III, Bangalore ( 2) The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - III, Bangalore ( 3) The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - IV, Bangalore ( 4) The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 12, Bangalore ( 5) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 12(2), Bangalore ( 6) The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax -V, New Delhi ( 7) The Commissioner of Income Tax - V, New Delhi ( 8) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13(1), New Delhi Encl: As above 7.1 Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the copy of the Hon ble High Court dated 9.1.2009 placed in Paper Book No. C at Pages no. 6 to 38. In this Order the Hon ble High Court has sanctioned the petition in the case of M/s Nokia Siemens Network India Pvt. Ltd, the transferor company seeking sanction of amalgamation with M/s Nokia Siemens Network Pvt. Ltd. (transferee company) so as to make the same binding on all the sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
