TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 900
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he DRP dated 11.03.2014 passed under section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in deleting the addition of TP regarding super normal profit of one comparable company having variation in PLI ranging from (-) 13.55% to 113.49% and in TNNM. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Dispute Resolution Panel erred to exclude the comparable in the case of Mold-Tek only from the angle of super normal profit rather than comparing the same from its functional basis. As the Mold-Tek and the assessee company both are functionally in same line of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessee and not considering the level of risk assumed in the case of Assessee vis-à-vis risk assumed by the identified comparable companies ii. including additional companies which are not comparable to the Assessee due to the following reasons: * Functionally not comparable to the Assessee * Earning Super normal profits * Exceptional year of operation * Financial information not available in public domain iii. rejecting two of the Assessee's comparables as consolidated financials were being used iv. holding that nine companies are not a reasonable under of comparables. v. providing the Assessee an additional set of 21 comparable companies identified through a separate process, without rejecting the searc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rejected the appeal of the assessee by holding that the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer was in pursuant to the order/directions of the DRP. The assessee filed two separate appeals in ITA No.7230/M/2011 and 5401/2012 against the assessment order as well as the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). In the appeal filed against the assessment order pursuant to the order of DRP rejecting the objections, the Tribunal vide its order dated 16.11.12 held that the DRP has committed the mistake in rejecting the objections of the assessee on the ground that the form No.35A was not signed by the Managing Director of the assessee. Accordingly, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the DRP for consideration of objections filed by the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee the objections were filed on 23.12.10 and therefore as per the provisions of section 253 the Revenue has no right to file the appeal against the directions of the DRP and consequently the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. has submitted that once the matter was restored by the Tribunal to the record of the DRP with the direction to consider the objections filed by the assessee afresh therefore, the objection so filed by the assessee would be treated as filed subsequent to the order of this Tribunal and accordingly the appeal of the Revenue is maintainable. 9. Having considered the rival submissions and careful perusal of the record, we find that there is no dispute that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 2A has been inserted which reads as under: "(2A) The [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner may, if he objects to any direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel under sub-section (5) of section 144C in respect of any objection filed on or after the 1st day of July, 2012, by the assessee under sub-section (2) of section 144C in pursuance of which the Assessing Officer has passed an order completing the assessment or reassessment, direct the Assessing Officer to appeal to the Apellate Tribunal against the order." 11. It is clear from the provision of sub section 2A inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.07.2012 that the Principal Commissioner of Commissioner may direct the Assessing Officer to file the appeal....