9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO') under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act persuant to the directions of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. DRP') is bad in law and void ab-initio. 2. The final assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is barred by limitation as it has not been passed after taking into consideration the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer's ("Ld. TPO") order which has been passed subsequent to the time limit prescribed for passing the final assessment order. 3 The Ld. AO has erred in proceeding to compute the total income of the assessee by making an addition of INR 80,746,954, without being in conformity with the Arms Length price as determined by the Ld. TPO pursuant to direction of Ld. DRP. 4. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount is still appearing as payable in the books of accounts of the appellant for the relevant previous year i.e. FY 2008-09. 4.7 doubting the genuineness of creditors on the basis of unfounded assumptions and without bringing any material on record to doubt the genuineness. 4.8 not seeking the independent confirmations from the creditors inspite of powers available to the Ld. AO under the provisions of the Act. 5. The Ld. AO (following the directions of the Ld. DRP) has erred in making disallowance of INR 201,134,971 by treating advances received from customers as income chargeable to tax under section 41(1) of the Act. While doing so: 5.1 the Ld. AO has erred in invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act, in complete dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004-05, the appellant has been continuously incurring losses and accordingly no deduction under section 80 IA(4) of the Act was claimed. 7.3 The Ld.AO has failed to appreciate the fact that appellant reported losses in its current year's return of income and accordingly no deduction u/s 80 IA (4) of the Act could have been claimed. 7.4 The Ld. AO has erred in stating that the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions required for claiming deduction u/s 80 IA (4) of the Act. 7.5 The Ld. AO has further erred in stating that the appellant was given full opportunity to furnish the relevant details/ explanations in this regard. 8. That the Ld. AO has erred in not granting credit of taxes deducted at source to the extent of INR 449,488. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjustment and assessed the total income at Rs. 17,43,13,380/-. Subsequently, the Transfer Pricing Officer vide order dated 21.02.2014 passed an order giving effect to DRP directions and deleted the Transfer Pricing adjustment to the extent of Rs. 8,07,46,954/- as well as corporate tax additions/disallowance was reduced to Rs. 46,80,81,858/-. 5. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the Assessment Order for both Transfer Pricing issues as well as corporate tax issues on 04.04.2014 before us. 6. Subsequently, rectification order u/s 154/143(3)/144C was passed on 15.07.2014 thereby deleting the entire Transfer Pricing adjustment and retaining the corporate tax addition to Rs. 46,80,81,858/-. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the following decisions of the Tribunal: i. Flextronics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Circle 3(1)(1), Banalore [IT(TP)A No.832/Bang/2017] ii. Software Paradigms Infotech (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2018] 89 taxmann.com 339 (ITAT Bangalore) iii. July Systems & Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2018] IT(TP) A No.368/Bang/2016 (ITAT Bangalore) iv. ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie vs. Union of India [2016] 388 ITR 383 10. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer is required to pass the final assessment order in conformity with the DRP directions. In the present case, DRP directed the Transfer Pricing Officer to give working capital adjustment and recomputed ALP as per specified guidelines. However, instead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (10) of Section 144C is not procedural but a mandatory requirement. If the Transfer Pricing Officer has not passed any order, the Assessing Officer should have taken into account the DRP's direction and would have taken cognizance in the final assessment order, but the Assessing Officer choose not to follow the DRP's direction. Subsequently, when the Transfer Pricing Officer passed the order giving effect to DRP's directions vide order dated 21.02.2014, the Assessing Officer on suo moto basis has rectified the assessment order u/s 154 thereby giving effect to directions of the DRP. As per Section 143(3), the Assessing Officer has to pass the assessment order within the prescribed period otherwise the assessment becomes time barred. The A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
