TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce with the directions given by the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the earlier assessment years. Thus we direct the learned TPO to decide the instant first and foremost ground afresh as per law after taking into consideration all the said preceding assessment years developments on the very issue. ALP adjustment - international transactions with overseas associated enterprises involving the provision of oracle support services in the relevant previous year - Comparable selection - HELD THAT:- We make it clear that neither of the learned lower authorities holds the entity M/s. Crystal Vox Ltd. as not a functionally comparable entity. This is indeed coupled with the assessee s pleadings on merits that both the learned lower authorities had not made available the corresponding financial statements. Mr. Bafna further highlighted the fact that the receivables in the said company of merely Rs.97,391/- out of Rs.2,21,26,002/- exceed 06 months time period as per the corresponding financial statements. Be that as it may, the Revenue could hardly dispute that even if the said outstanding receivables are accepted as having more than four months, the same would hardly effect the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 27.04.2021, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : The grounds stated hereunder are independent of, and without prejudice to one another: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer ( Ld. AO ), following the directions of Hon ble Dispute Resolution Panel ( Ld. DRP ), erred in confirming the addition of Rs.26,31,30,651/- to the total income of the Appellant on under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act ), The Appellant prays that various disallowances/ additions/adjustments made by the AO be deleted. Transfer Pricing related 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. DRP/Ld. AO/Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld, TPO ) erred in determining the arm s length price of the international transaction pertaining to payment of fees for advisory and other services by the Appellant to its associated enterprise ('AE') as Nil as against Rs.15,75,65,9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking a TP adjustment on account of provision of oracle support services erred in: i. disregarding the appropriateness of benchmarking conducted by Appellant and quantitative/qualitative filters considered therein; ii. modifying the set of comparables; and iii. erroneously considering functionally dissimilar companies: Domex E-Data Private Limited Informed Technologies India Ltd. Inteq B P O Services Pvt. Ltd. Manipal Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd. as additional comparables in final set of comparables. The Appellant prays that the benchmarking analysis conducted by the Appellant in the TP study ought to be accepted, above mentioned companies be rejected from the final set of comparables and consequently, the TP adjustment be deleted. Corporate Tax related 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO as per directions given by Hon DRP has erred in denying the weighted deduction of Rs.18,63,37,428 (200% of revenue expenditure of Rs.8,82,53,166 and capital expenditure of INR 49,15,548) claimed by the Appellant under section 35(2AB) of the Act on the ground that Department of Scientific and In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal members to decide these according to the law. 2.1. We proceed ground wise for the sake of completeness of our adjudication. 3. The assessee s first and foremost substantive ground is treated as general in nature. Rejected accordingly. 4. The assessee s 2nd to 4th substantive grounds seek to reverse transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.15,75,65,912/- pertaining to fee for advisory and other services involving its overseas associated enterprises AE's whose price has been taken by the TPO at NIL as affirmed in the DRP s directions. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee has filed its case law paper book running into 81 pages placing on record this tribunal s six orders i.e., common for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 and 2012-13, and 2013-14 to 2016-17 each adjudicating the very issue against the department. We deem it appropriate to quote learned coordinate bench s last order dated 15.07.2021 for assessment year 2016-17 involving assessee s appeal ITA.No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RP) but without any success. The AO in the final assessment order made the transfer pricing addition of Rs.14.56 crore against which the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is found as an admitted position that the facts and circumstances of the instant appeal are similar to those of the earlier years. The Tribunal has passed orders starting from assessment year 2009-10 to 2015-16, whose copies have been placed on record. In the lead order, which has been followed in later years, the application of the TNMM as the most appropriate method has been accepted in preference to the CUP method as applied by the TPO. After giving certain directions, matter has been sent back to the AO/TPO for deciding the issue accordingly. The ld. DR fairly conceded that the facts and circumstances of the instant appeal are mutatis mutandis similar to those of earlier years. Respectfully following the precedent, we set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of AO/TPO for deciding this issue afresh in accordance with the directions given by the Tribunal in assessee s own case for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not satisfying FAR analysis. Faced with the situation, we accept the assessee s corresponding substantive ground no.6(i) herein to this effect and direct the TPO to frame his afresh computation in very terms. 6.1. Learned counsel at this stage stated at the Bar that the assessee is not pressing its other sub-grounds in ground no.6. We thus accept the instant ground partly for statistical purposes. 7. Next comes the assessee s 7th substantive ground challenging correctness of sec.35(2)(AB) weighted deduction disallowance of Rs.18,63,37,428/- on the ground that the prescribed authority i.e., Department of Science and Industrial Research [ DSIR ] has not issued Form 3CL qua the same. It emerges during the course of hearing that the said prescribed authority has now issued Form 3CL to the assessee on 25.04.2022 [pages 2336 and 2337 in paper book] before us. Faced with the situation, we restore the assessee s instant 7th substantive ground to the Assessing Officer for his afresh factual verification as per law preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing. 8. The assessee s 8th substantive ground challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities action in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
