TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 797
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal." 3. Facts, in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 31.10.2005 for the AY 2005-06 declaring a loss of Rs. 51,83,340/-. The case was processed u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961,(herein after the Act) on 07.8.2006. and statutory notice were issued. Later on this case was selected for scrutiny, since being connected with SK Gupta Group of Cases, in which search and seizure action took place on 12.1.2006, so was transferred u/s. 127 of the Act, to Central Circle-9, New Delhi. As a result of transfer of jurisdiction, fresh statutory notices were issued and the assessee responded to it before the AO. 4. The assessee's case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The assessee filed its computation of profitability taking results of 87 selected comparables as given in pages 189, 190 & 191 of the paper book. The TPO passed order dated 29.10.2008 u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act as under :- "With the above discussions, all the contentions made by the assessee has been discussed at length and the search adopted in order to fine tune the one made by the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....797,186 Revenue booked by the assessee = Rs.126,316,542 Difference = Rs.74,80,644 Difference as a percentage of ALP = 5.59% Accordingly, the Arm's length price of the international transaction related to software development and designing services is determined as under :- S.No. International Transaction Book Vale Difference loaded Arm's length price Difference (%) 1 Software Development services 12415....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of Rs. 74,80,644/- and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 22,97,300/- vide his order dated 23.12.2008 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 8. Against the aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned Order dated 30.5.2012 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition. 9. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. 10. The sole issue is the impugned action of the Ld CIT(A) to exclude M/s Satyam computers Ltd,from the list of comparables selected by the by the TPO,/AO. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the TPO and the Assessing Officer and assailed the CIT(A) decision to exclude M/s Satyam computers Ltd from the list of comparables when it was functionally similar to the tested party. 11. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and defended the same and does not want us to interfere in the impugned order. 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that the assessee was incorporated in the year 2000, in India as a 100% Export Oriented Unit ('EOU'). The Company is a joint venture between Sumitomo Wiring Systems Ltd., Japan (33.89....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period. 12.4 It is common knowledge that M/s. Satyam Computers Services Ltd. indulged in fraud and its financial statements cannot be taken as true because it has botched up the financials and doctored it, which led to lodging of several criminal cases against its directors ; and subsequent to the scandal being unearthed the company (M/s. Satyam Computer Services Ltd.) itself has come up with a statement that it's financial results are not reliable, for the relevant assessment year too, comes in that net. 12.5 The ld. CIT (A) has taken note of the Annual Report of M/s. Satyam Computer Services Limited for financial year 2009-10, - Corporate Governance Reports - makes a mention of the fact that the financial statements of preceding years should not be relied upon. An extract from page no. 23 of the report reads as follows:- "M/s Price Waterhouse, the erstwhile auditors of the Company communicated vide a letter dated January 13, 2009, that their audit reports issued on the financial statements of the Company from the quarter ended June 30, 2000 until the quarter ended September 30, 2008 should no longer be relied upon. Further, in view of the financial irregularities identified, ....