2016 (9) TMI 1283

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hopra, the Ld. counsel for the assessee, submitted that he is pressing grounds No.5, 6 & 7 raised in the grounds of appeal. In respect of other grounds, the Ld. counsel fairly submitted that he is not pressing. The Ld. counsel has also made an endorsement to that effect on the appeal folder. 3. Referring to the ground No.5, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Transfer Pricing Officer and Dispute Resolution Panel have not made any adjustment on account of difference in working capital position of the assessee vis-à-vis the comparable companies. According to the Ld. counsel, the Dispute Resolution Panel has to make proper adjustment with regard to working capital employed by the assessee as well as the comparable cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the same. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the matter needs to be reconsidered and the DRP is expected to pass a speaking order. 5. On the contrary, Shri Parashiraiah, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee has not provided any source material so as to enable the TPO or DRP to verify the working capital employed by the assessee and comparable companies. Since the source material was not produced by the assessee, the DRP has rightly confirmed the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer. 6. Referring to the ground Nos.6 and 7 with regard to selection of comparables and objection with regard to comparables selected by the TPO and DRP, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the Transfer Pricing Officer examined the m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there cannot be any transfer pricing adjustment. 8. Moreover, the picking up of comparables or selection of comparable companies was objected by the assessee. Transfer Pricing Officer considered the claim of the assessee and excluded M/s Mobil Telecommunications Ltd. and included M/s Aanchal Computers Ltd. The Dispute Resolution Panel simply rejected the objection of the assessee without any further discussion in the order. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the DRP, being the fact finding authority with regard to international transaction, is expected to dispose each and every aspect with regard to functional similarity, capital employed by the assessee, etc. for the purpose of de....