2014 (4) TMI 468

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... safe-harbour is not in the nature of a standard deduction as can be deduced from the Memorandum to the Finance Bill (2) of 2009, and CBDT Notification F No.142/13/2010-SO(TPL) dated 30.09.2010;      2. The appellant prays that the order of ld. CIT(A)j on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored." 2. Assessee has also filed Cross-objection taking following grounds :      "Each of the following grounds are independent of, and without prejudice to one another:      Without prejudice to the conclusion in the order of the CIT(A)-15:      1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CIT(A) erred, in upholding /confirming the action of the TPO of using data obtained under section 133(6) of the Act which was not available in public domain as on specified date (as defined in section 92F(iv) of the Act read with Rule 10B(4) of the Rules;      5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding/confirming the action of the TPO with respect to functional non-comparability of services rendered by the appellant with the services rendered by the alleged comparables selected by the TPO;      6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding /confirming the action of the TPO of comp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T(A) erred in upholding / confirming the action of the TPO in rejecting the without prejudice contention of the Appellant to compute the margin of alleged comparable companies based on multiple year financial data;      12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding / confirming the action of the TPO in not allowing risk adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 to account for difference between international transactions and the alleged comparable uncontrolled transactions selected by the learned AO/TPO;      13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Hon'ble ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) interalia contending that TPO adopted the set of 25 comparables with arithmetic mean of 30.75% after rejecting the set of comparables adopted by assessee computed arithmetic mean of profit level indicator (PLI) at 16.16%. The assessee adopted TNMM to benchmark with its international transactions, with operating profit over total cost as PLI at 23%. In the grounds of appeal filed before ld. CIT(A), assessee disputed the approach followed by TPO in selecting the comparables. Assessee also took a ground of appeal viz ground No.5 before ld. CIT(A) as under :      "5. The ld. AO/TPO has erred, in law, by not providing the appellant the benefit of 5 percent deduction from the ALP. The ld. A....