TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the matter, we are refrained from adjudicating the grounds raised in the assessee's appeals. - IT(TP)A Nos. 1150/Bang/2015, 316/Bang/2016, 585/Kol/2015, 310/Bang/2016 and CO No. 31/Kol/2015 - - - Dated:- 30-8-2021 - Chandra Poojari, Member (A) And George George K., Member (J) For the Appellant : Sumeet Khurana, CA For the Respondents : Rajendra Kumar Mishra, CIT-DR ORDER These are cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue. These appeals and are directed against the final assessment orders passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T. Act. The relevant assessment years are 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. The assessee has also preferred a Cross Objection for assessment year 2010-2011. 2. The grounds raised in these appeals cross objections, are as follows:- IT(TP)A No. 1150/Bang/2015 (Assessee's appeal for Asst. Year 2010-2011) 1. That the learned ( Ld. ) Assessing Officer ( AO ) and the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ( DRP ) erred in upholding the approach of the Ld. Additional Director of Income Tax Transfer Pricing Officer - II, Kolkata ( Transfer Pricing Officer or TPO ) with respect to the international transactions in relation to pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -tax, Transfer Pricing, Kolkata ( Transfer Pricing Officer or TPO ) of making an adjustment to the transfer price of the Appellant to the tune of INR 12,736,297 in relation to transaction of corporate management services and reimbursement of expenses, holding that the international transactions does not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Act. In doing so, the Ld. DRP grossly erred in: 2.1. Holding that corporate management services and reimbursement of expenses is in the nature of stewardship activities. 2.2. Disregarding the genuineness of the arrangement of the Appellant with its Associated Enterprise ( AE ) despite furnishing a legal and contractually binding agreement with respect to transactions. 2.3. Upholding the conclusion that no commercial or economic benefits have been received by the Appellant disregarding the collective evidences provided by the Appellant to establish the benefit received from services provided by the AE. 2.4. Not considering the information/documents/clarification provided to satisfy benefit test for the transactions in appeal and erred in computing the arm's length value of the said transaction to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... level analysis for all the international transactions of the assessee under the transactional Net Margin Method as the Most Appropriate Method; 3. Whether on the basis of facts and in law, Ld. ORP, Kolkata have erred in not considering that the international transaction pertaining to payment made by the assessee to its associated enterprise reimbursement and project expenses to its associated enterprise CAE, Canada are of the nature of stewardship activity as held by Hon'ble supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. OIT (International Taxation), Mumbai Vs. Morgan Stanley Co. Inc; The appellant craves leave to amend, modify or alter any grounds of appeal during the course of hearing of this case. IT(TP)A No. 310/Bang/2016 (Revenue's appeal for Asst. Year 2011-2012) 1. Whether the Hon'ble DRP erred in fact in rejecting the company as a comparable on the grounds that it is functionally different when the primary source of income of the comparable is from provision of software development services. 2. Whether while seeking the exact comparability the DRP was right in fact and in law in imposing condition beyond law whereas the requirement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )with respect to the international transactions in relation to payment for corporate management services and reimbursement of expenses of the respondent. 2. The Ld. DRP erred both in facts and law in confirming the action of the learned AO and the learned TPO of making an adjustment to the transfer price of the Appellant in relation to transaction of corporate management services and reimbursement of expenses, holding that the international transactions in appeal does not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Income-tax Act, 1961. In doing so, the Ld. DRP grossly erred on the following: 2.1. Holding corporate management services and reimbursement of expenses towards stewardship activities. 2.2. Disregarding the genuineness of the arrangement of the Appellant with its associated enterprise despite furnishing a legal and contractually binding agreement with respect to transactions. 2.3. Upholding the conclusion that no commercial or economic benefits have been received by the Appellant disregarding the collective evidences provided by the Appellant to establish the benefit received. 2.4. Not considering the information/documents/clarific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
