TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 438
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,109/- in respect of international transaction entered into by the Assessee. (a) by violating the provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962 in not providing any opportunity to the TPO before admitting evidence in the form of Annual Report of Lan Esada and also in allowing the assessee to go back on its own stand of calculation of margin of this company. (b) by calculating the margin of the comparable namely Lan Esada by considering items of expenditure which are non-operating in nature." 2. Cross-objection is filed by the assessee on the following grounds: "1. That on the facts and in law, the Commissioner of Incometax Appeals ('Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that current year financial information of comparable companies, which was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant is engaged in the business of selling online auction solutions along with provision of related services to its Indian clients. Further, the appellant also provided contract software development services to Ariba Inc." 4. The ld. DR Mr. Peeyush Jain, referred to Para 12.4 at page 45 of the ld. CIT(A)'s order and submitted that there is difference in the financial data, for the financial year 2003-04, of the company M/s LAN ESADA Industries Ltd. as the data available in the public domain were at variance with the data available in the annual report. The assessee relied on the financial data as given in the annual report of the company and submitted that the financial data in the public domain is wrong. The ld. CIT(A) agreed with the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hen the correct financial data of that company as reflected by its annual report, which were not available before the TPO, has been rightly considered by the ld. CIT(A). We also do not find any merit in the submission of the ld. DR that pro rata data should not be taken. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. C.O. No.130/Del/2010 8. Coming to the Cross-objections, the ld. counsel for the assessee submits that he is not pressing ground no. 1. 9. In the result, ground no. 1 is dismissed as not pressed. 10. On ground no. 2 the ld. counsel, for the assessee submitted that additional comparables were not looked into by the first appellate authority, which as per the ld. counsel is against the principles of natural justice....