TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 932
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Pricing Officer-1 (2) ("Ld. TPO") of enhancing the income of the Assessee by INR 14,155,941 holding that the international related party transactions pertaining to provision of IT enabled Services ("ITeS") do not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 3. . On facts, circumstances of the case and in law,, the Ld. Panel and Ld. AO/Ld. TPOI erred in not demonstrating that the motive of the assessee ws to shift profits outside India by manipulating the prices charged in its international transactions, which is a pre-requisite condition to make any adjustment under the provision of Chapter X of the Act. 4. On facts and in law, the Ld. Panel and Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in disregarding the Assessee's use of multiple year/prior years' data in contravention of the provision of section 92C of the Act read with Rule 10B and Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules"). 5. On facts and in law, the Ld. Panel and Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in disregarding the doctrine of impossibility of performance in contravening section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D(4) of the Rules, which mandate the use of contemporaneous data for the determinatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct and Rs. 5,62,61,355/- as per provisions of section 115JB of the Act. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the case was selected for scrutiny. Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee is engaged in International transaction for Rs. 49,05,94,612/-.Therefore, the case was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for computation of arm's length price (ALP) for the said international transaction. Before the TPO, the assessee gave comparables of 8 companies. However, the TPO after considering the issue at length and modifying/adding certain selection filters, rejected 6 comparables from the assessee's set and selected seven new comparables while determining the ALP vide order dated 03.01.2014 u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act in the following manner : Sl. No. Company Name OP/OC 1 Accentia Tech. 42.52% 2 Cosmic Global 18.28% 3 e4e Healthcare 31.03% 4 Fortune Infotech Limited 22.80% 5 ICRA Techno Analystics Limited (Segment) 28.66% 6 igate Global Solutions Limited 24.54% 7 Infosys BPO Ltd. 31.44% 8 TCS E-Seve International 54.03% 9 TCS E-Serve Ltd. 63.42% ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order was passed by the then AO on 30.01.2015 whereby the AO confirmed the ALP determined by the TPO u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act and made addition of Rs. 9,41,55,941/-, being the difference between the adjustment, as stated (supra). 3. The ld. AR of the assessee mainly rests his arguments on ground No. 1, stating that the final order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act is invalid because it has been passed beyond the due date as provided in the Act. In support of this contention, he submitted before us photocopy of a letter No. F.No. DCIT/C-2/GGN/15-16/7024 dt. 03.11.2015 written by DCIT, Circle-2, Gurgaon to the ld. Sr. DR, ITAT, 'I' Bench, wherein the directions given by DRP u/s. 144C are shown to have been received before 28.10.2014 to the then AO. The ld. AR further submitted that accordingly, the assessment order in compliance to the directions of DRP, ought to have been passed within one month, i.e., upto 30.11.2014. However, the same has been passed on 30.01.2015, which is not sustainable having been passed beyond the period of limitation. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the final assessment order passed by the AO (DCIT Circle-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be collected by, it; and (g) result of any enquiry made by, or caused to be made by, it. (7) The Dispute Resolution Panel may, before issuing any directions referred to in sub-section (5),- (a) make such further enquiry, as it thinks fit; or (b) cause any further enquiry to be made by any income-tax authority and report the result of the same to it. (8) The Dispute Resolution Panel may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order so, however, that it shall not set aside any proposed variation or issue any direction under sub-section (5) for further enquiry and passing of the assessment order. Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the power of the Dispute Resolution Panel to enhance the variation shall include and shall be deemed always to have included the power to consider any matter arising out of the assessment proceedings relating to the draft order, notwithstanding that such matter was raised or not by the eligible assessee. (9) If the members of the Dispute Resolution Panel differ in opinion on any point, the point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members. (10) Ev....