TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, Bangalore (DRP) under section 144C(5) of the Act dated 07.11.2016. The relevant Assessment Year is 2012-13. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under:- 2.1 The assessee, a company, engaged in the business of manufacture and trade of various types of inventors, servers and other electric products, filed its return for Assessment Year 2012-13 on 22.08.2012 declaring a loss of Rs. 14,54,37,463/-. The assessee filed a revised return of income on 29.11.2012 declaring a loss of Rs. 11,57,35,181/- on account of merger of M/s. Yaskawa Robotics India Ltd., with the assessee w.e.f. 01.04.2011. The case was selected for scrutiny and a reference was made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal Commissioner of Income Tax. (Transfer Pricing) 2(2). Bengaluru (hereinafter referred as "TP0- for brevity), and the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel-2(hereinafter referred as "DRP" for brevity) ("AO-. ".1 PO- and DRP collectively referred as "lower authorities- for brevity) have erred in passing the order which are bad in law 2. The learned AO has erred in passing the final assessment order without appreciating that he does not have jurisdiction over the Appellant. The learned AO has erred in exercising jurisdiction without appreciating that learned ITO W-7(1)(4), Bangalore had initiated assessment and passed draft Assessment Order in Appellant's case and therefore AC1T Circle 7(1)(2) had no jurisdiction over the Appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Appellant during the TP assessment proceedings on unjustified grounds; b. Conducting a fresh transfer pricing analysis despite absence of any defects in the transfer pricing analysis submitted by the Appellant; c. Adopting inappropriate filters in the process of selecting comparables; and d. Rejecting K Dhandapani and Co. Ltd as a comparable on unjustified grounds. 7. The lower authorities have erred in: a. Ignoring the business, commercial and industry realities and economic circumstances applicable to Appellant vis a vis the comparables: b. Not making proper adjustment for enterprise level and transactional level differences between the Appellant and the comparable companies: and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made in the final order of assessment for Assessment Year 2012-13. It was further submitted that the MAP proceedings have been resolved; and a copy of the intimation to the assessee by the AO in this regard vide letter No. MAP/DCIT-C-7(i)(2)/2018-19 dated 19.03.2019 has also been placed on record. The assessee by way of this letter dated 21.03.2019 informs the Tribunal that the assessee has accepted the MAP resolution arrived at by the Competent Authorities of India and Japan and wishes to withdraw the grounds raised on Transfer Pricing issues in the present appeal. In this regard, the learned AR submitted before the Bench that the assessee withdraws ground Nos.1 to 8 on Transfer Pricing issues raised in respect of the MAP resolution and in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es not relate to any variation made by the AO in the income / loss returned by the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-13, the objection is beyond the scope of the powers of the DRP. 5.2.2 We are of the view that, if as contended by the assessee, it has actually inadvertently disallowed the employees' contribution to PF amounting to Rs. 22,49,827/- in the revised return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13, when the same was remitted within the due date for filing the return of income; then its claim would be allowable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Sabari Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar). Whatever may be the fetters placed on the scope of the powers of the DRP, with due respect, there can be n....