TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1339
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the order of the transfer pricing officer in so far as it is against the appellant is against the law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, equity, without jurisdiction, bad in law and all other known principles of law. 2. That the total income computed and the total tax computed is hereby disputed. VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT IJURISDICTION 3. The authorities below erred in framing an assessment against the appellant company which ceased to exist, consequent to the order of merger dated: 24.07.2013 of Karnataka High Court effective from 01.04.2012. Thus, the authorities erred in making an order of assessment against a non-existent entity on the date of assessment. 4. The authorities belo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmunication/order of the Transfer Pricing Officer and the directions of DRP. Sl.No Description Amount 1 Arm's Length Price difference in Software Development services Rs. 7,85,33,060/- 2 Arm's Length Price difference in IT Enabled Services Rs. 28,15,78,052/- 3 Arm's Length Price difference in the Contract Manufacturing Rs. 30,72,68,521/- Total adjustment U /s 92CA Rs. 66,73,79,633/- 12. The AO/TPO/DRP erred in making adjustment of Rs. 7,85,33,060/- towards the Software Development Services, while determining the ALP of the international transactions of the appellant. 13. The AO/TPO/DRP erred in making an adjustment of Rs. 28,15,78,052/- towards the IT Enabled Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment, risk level, working capital adjustments, sought by the appellant. 22. That the AO/DRP erred in holding that ipso facto the determination/calculation of arm's length price amounts to earning of income by the appellant, thereby taxable in its hands. 23. The order of the Transfer pricing officer, directions of DRP and that of the AO is in clear violation of the law on this issue and the principles enunciated by various courts more particularly on the issue of reference, sanction of approval, recording of reasons and lack of satisfaction. 24. That no copy of the reasons recorded for making the reference to the TPO has been furnished nor copy of the approval obtained for making the reference has been furnished to the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES 32. The Learned DRP failed to adjudicate the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act of professional fees for miscellaneous services and public accountants' fees to the extent of Rs. 2,52,58,803/- inspite of proof of deduction of tax at source was produced. 33. The Learned DRP failed to adjudicate the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act the rent paid to the extent of Rs. 5,58,40,000/-. 34. The Learned AO failed to appreciate and consider the deduction of tax at source by the appellant. 35. The Learned AO / DRP failed to appreciate that no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made for short fall in deduction of tax at source or applying lower rate. 36. The AO/DRP failed to appreciate and take cognizanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed the validity of assessment on the ground that assessment was framed in the hands of non-existing entity. The ld. counsel for the assessee further invited our attention to the fact that assessment order was passed on 27.03.2015, whereas the merger of M/s. GE Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. with M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt Ltd. took place on 01.04.2012 vide order of Merger dated 24.07.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Despite the fact of merger of assessee company i.e., M/s. GE Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. with M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt Ltd. brought to the notice of the AO, but he has framed the assessment in the hands of the merging company i.e., M/s. GE Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. He has also invited our atte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued u/s. 143(2) on 31.07.2012 and till then, there is nothing on record to establish that the fact of merger was brought to the notice of AO. The assessment was completed on 27.03.2015 and in the assessment order, the AO has mentioned against the name of assessee as M/s. GE Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Since merged with M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt Ltd.), meaning thereby that during the assessment proceedings, these facts were brought to the notice of the AO. While passing the order, the DRP has also passed the order though in the name of merged company i.e., M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt Ltd., but the PAN No. is of the erstwhile company i.e., M/s. GE Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. Despite this defect in the order of DRP with rega....