9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in law, the learned AO grossly erred in passing the impugned order without appreciating the correct factual position and legal principles brought on record by the Appellant. 2. The Hon'ble DRP erred on the facts and law and violated the powers granted under section 144C(5) of the Act by not passing a speaking order in respect of adjustment pertaining to the international transaction of provision of consultancy services (hereinafter referred to as "subject transaction") by the Appellant to its AES. 3. The Learned TPO erred in law by not complying with the direction of the Hon'ble DRP while passing the order giving effect to such directions thus the order so passed by the Learned TPO is void ab initio. 4. The learned AO/TPO an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al statements were for a period other than 12 months). 9. The learned AO/TPO and Hon'ble DRP have erred, in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, by wrongfully rejecting certain similar companies from and adding certain dissimilar companies to the final set of comparable companies for benchmarking the subject transaction on an ad-hoc basis, thereby resorting to cherry picking of comparables for benchmarking the subject transaction. 10. The learned AO/TPO and Hon'ble DRP have erred, in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, by selecting certain companies (earning supernormal profits) as comparable to the Appellant to benchmark the subject transaction. 11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the learned AO/ TP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Assessing Officer. The ld. DRP had issued certain directions in the case. Therefore, after giving effect to the directions of the ld. DRP, the earlier adjustment of Rs. 6,91,26,651/- as proposed by the TPO u/s 92CA (3) remained unchanged. 4. Subsequently, the assessee has preferred appeal before the ITAT. In the letter dated 11.04.2023, the assessee raised the issue before the ITAT that in the Order Giving Effect (OGE) given by the TPO in pursuance of directions of the ld. DRP, the TPO did not follow the DRP's directions. 5. The ld. DRP has given directions vide para no. 4.4.2 about the acceptance or otherwise of the ITAT's order. Being pertinent the relevant extract of the ld. DRP's directions is mentioned below: "4.4.2. Consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oice comparison with AEs and third parties. 9. The ld. DR argued that based on the assessee's nonsubmission of documents/details, the TPO has made upward adjustments by rejecting the assessee's CUP method and adopted TNMM. The ld. DR argued that in earlier year, the assessee had established its case by submission of the invoices to AEs as well as non-AEs of the services rendered (as mentioned in the order of the Tribunal for AY 2011-12) and established comparison of the same. But in the instant case for F.Y. 2017-18, the assessee has not submitted invoices raised even after multiple opportunities were given to the assessee. It was further argued that the assessee company has failed to provide the details of the independent contracts/functi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
