TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, (Transfer Pricing - II), Pune [hereinafter referred to as Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TPO")] have erred in proposing and the DRP has further erred in confirming the proposed addition to the Appellant's total income of Rs. 4,55,95,256 (Rs.4,01,51,242 based on the provisions of Chapter X of the Act and Rs. 54,44,014 based on the other provisions of the Act). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the DRP, the Ld. AO and the Ld. TPO erred in rejecting the external CPM analysis corroborated by an external TNMM analysis in the Transfer Pricing report without appreciating the detailed benchmarking analysis carried out therein. 2.1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PM in spite of differences in functions performed, risks assumed and differences in volumes, commercial and economic circumstances between the Domestic and Export segments; 4.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the DRP, the Ld. AO and the Ld. TPO erred in applying internal CPM without following the provisions of Rule 10B(3); 4.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the ORP, the Ld. AO and the Ld. TPO erred in applying internal CPLM and comparing the domestic segment containing transactions with the associated enterprises ('AEs) (amounting to more than 25% of sales) with the export segment and thereby erroneously comparing controlled transactions with controlled transactions. 5 In the altern....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d upheld by the learned DRP be deleted. b) The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution, modification or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal, either before or during the hearing of the appeal. 3. The assessee is in appeal against the orders of Assessing Officer and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in making transfer pricing adjustment to the extent of Rs. 4,01,51,242/-. 4. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the assessee had entered into an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) with Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) covering nine years i.e. from assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 under roll back provisions and from assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19 for the balance period. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Purchase of tools, calendars, and label printing software and payment of rent for video conferencing 1,84,872 Total 28,40,90,154 7. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had proposed an adjustment of Rs. 4,01,51,242/- holding that international transactions entered into by the assessee on account of purchase of raw material and sale of finished goods was not at arm's length. The Assessing Officer re-computed the deduction under section 10B of the Act resulting in an addition of Rs. 12,82,707/-. Another addition made in the hands of assessee was on account of depreciation, wherein excess depreciation claimed by the assessee at Rs. 41,41,930/- was disallowed. The draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was objected to ....