TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder:- I.T.A. No. 369/DEL/2016 (Revenue's appeal) 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the DRP-2 erred in directing AO to complete the assessment as per observations made by DRP in the order which resulting in reducing the addition to Rs. 26,07,240/- in place of original recommended ALP of Rs. 54,82,095/- for the International transactions undertaken the assessee company with its associate/parent enterprise. 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the DRP-II erred in directing TPO to exclude below mentioned companies from the final set of comparables :- (viii) Aptico Ltd. (ix) CDSL Ventures Ltd. (x) TSR Darashaw Ltd. (xi) Killick Agencies & Marketing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inst the transfer pricing adjustment of INR 5,482,095 proposed by the TPO in respect of the international transaction relating to business support services 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the facts and in law, the DRP / AO / TPO while re-determining arm's length price with respect to the international transaction relating to business support services have erred in (a) not fully appreciating the business model, functional, asset and risk analysis, (b) not accepting the economic analysis done in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Rules and (c) making several observations / findings based on incorrect interpretation of law and contrary to facts of the case. 4. That on the facts and circumstances....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination of the arm's length price as defined under section 92F of the Act. 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP / AO / TPO erred in not providing the Appellant the benefit of (+/-) 5% range as provided by the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act. 11. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the A.O has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. Each of the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the appellant." 3. During the year, the assessee company was engaged in the Business of Acquiring Rights and to Print/Reprint, through ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ernational transaction with its AEs. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order and the directions of the DRP, both the assessee as well as revenue filed present appeals before us. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue contested in the assessee's appeal is already dealt by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2010-11 being ITA No. 1700/Del/2015 order dated 06.07.2018. As regards revenue's appeal, the Ld. AR submitted the chart in respect of comparables which have to be excluded and which comparables have to be included and this issue is also covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case. The Ld. AR submitted that the DRP rightly excluded comparables such as Apitco Limited, CDSL Ventures Limited, Killick Agenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 99.97% of its income from services. 7. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the TPO/AO. The Ld. DR further submitted that as regards assessee's appeal is concerned, the DRP has rightly excluded BVG India Ltd. and Office Care Services Ltd. as the company has failed the service income filter. As regards the exclusion of Global Procurement Consultants Ltd., the Ld. DR submitted that this comparable is functionally comparable as it provides a comprehensive range of procurement advisory services and allied activities. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on records. It is pertinent to note that as regards Revenue's appeal is concerned all the comparables contested by the revenue are already ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Limited and Office Care Services Limited, both these aspect has to be looked into by the TPO as the functional profile set out by the assessee before us, it will be appropriate to remand back this issue to the file of the TPO/AO to verify. Thus, matter is remanded back to the file of the TPO/AO. Needless to say, the assessee company be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. In respect of the correct applicability of the filters, it is pertinent to note that the Tribunal in A.Y. 2010-11 held as under: "11. Keeping in view the contentions raised by the ld. AR for the parties to the appeal, we are of the considered view that filter of rejecting companies whose manufacturing/trading income is greater t....