9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the order of the transfer pricing officer in so far as it is against the appellant is against the law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, equity, without jurisdiction, bad in law and all other known principles of law. 2. That the total income computed and the total tax computed is hereby disputed. 3. That the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer is without jurisdiction, against the law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, equity and all other known principles of law. 4. That the findings, reasons, conclusions and directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u/s 144C are unsustainable in law requires to be set aside. Consequently the additions based on such directions also requires to be set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... difference in the royalty paid Rs. 10,82,48,490/- 2 Arm's Length Price difference in distribution segment Rs. 419,24,94,988/- 3 Arm's Length Price difference in the Software services segment Rs. 27,69,08,318/- 4 Arm's Length Price difference in the Support Services Rs. 10,07,62,819/- Total adjustment U/S 92CA Rs.467,84,14,615/- 13.i) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in making adjustment towards the royalty for use of technology amounting Rs.10,82,48,490/- without determining the comparable transaction in the public domain as prescribed under the Act and Rules. ii) The AO/TPO/DRP erred in making adjustment towards the trade mark / trade name royalty amounting Rs.1,15,34,426/- without determining th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erms of Rule 10B(3). x) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in failing to rely on decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case for the years 2002 - 03 to 2004 - 05 and subsequent orders of the ITAT for other assessment years. xi) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in adopting TNMM as the MAM ignoring the findings of ITAT in the appellant's own case for earlier years and accepted by department on the same issue. 15.i) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in making adjustment towards the Arm's Length Price difference in the Software Services amounting Rs.27,69,08,318/-. ii) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in selecting the comparables. The selection of comparables does not confirm to the I.T. Rules. Further it also does not comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... / DRP erred in adding back to book profit the sum of Rs. 15,99,635/- in accordance with clause (c) of Explanation (1) to section 115JB of the Act. 21. The Learned AO / DRP erred in disallowing provision for foreseeable losses amounting to Rs. 1,28,33,674/- 22. The Learned AO / DRP erred in adding back to book profits the provision for foreseeable losses of Rs. 1,28,33,674/- in accordance with clause (c) of Explanation (1) to section 115JB of the Act. 23. The Learned AO / DRP erred in making disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 78,15,500/- on the Investment made in the Share Capital of M/s. GE Healthcare Bangladesh Ltd. 24. The Learned AO / DRP erred in adding back to book profits the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g it over a period of 5 years. 34. The above disallowances have been made without providing sufficient and adequate opportunity as required under law and the Act. On this ground alone the above disallowances requires to be deleted. 35. The Learned AO / DRP officer erred in not giving credit for full TDS. 36. The Learned AO/DRP erred in not providing adequate and sufficient opportunity to the appellant thus violating the principles of natural justice and on this ground alone the above disallowances requires to be deleted. ISSUE OF INTEREST U/S 234B 37. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234B of the Act. Further prays that the interest if any should be levied only on returned Income. 38. No opportunity has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 are placed on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that since the nature of the activities of the assessee remain the same, the matter may be sent back to the AO/TPO to re-examine the issue afresh, otherwise there would not be independent adjudication by the AO in the earlier years if the Tribunal expresses its views. 3. The ld. DR did not dispute this factual aspect. 4. Having carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities and the orders of the Tribunal for the AYs 2010-11 to 2012-13, we find that in the earlier years also, the DRP did not admit the additional evidence filed before him and the Tribunal for that reason set aside the order of the DRP and restored the matter to the TPO/AO to readjudicate the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
