TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 386
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. That the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer is without jurisdiction, against the law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, equity and all other known principles of law. 4. That the findings, reasons, conclusions and directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u/s 144C are unsustainable in law requires to be set aside. Consequently the additions based on such directions also requires to be set aside. 5. The DRP erred in not considering the relevant materials, evidences, data and relevant law. The directions issued are without application of mind. 6. That the Order / Directions of the AO / DRP violates the principles of judicial discipline as the binding nature of the orders of the higher appellate authorities have been totally ignored. 7. That the order of the DRP and the directions given therein are bad in law and not as per law requires to be cancelled. 8. That the AO/TPO/DRP erred in not providing adequate and sufficient opportunity as required under law thus violating the principle of natural justice, hence on this ground alone the orders requires to be annulled. ISSUE OF TRANSFER PRICING 9. That the order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the ITAT in appellant's own case for the years 2002-03 to 2004-05 and subsequent orders of the ITAT for AY:2005-06 & 2006-07. 14.i) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in making adjustment towards the Arm's Length Price difference in tne distribution segment amounting 225,79,76,895/-. ii. The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in making adjustment on transactions beyond AE transactions, thus, the adjustment proposed includes non AE transactions. iii.The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in wrongly adopting the financial results of the assessee. iv.The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in comparing the appellant's distribution margin with comparables which are not in the business of trading/distribution. v.The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in not following their own orders passed for the earlier asst. years on this issue. vi.The selection of the method by the Learned AO / TPO / DRP is not as per law. vii.The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in not granting the variances deduction envisaged in the Act and Circular. viii.The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in not carrying out the adjustments as required under law as well as the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts. iv)The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in wrongly adopting the financial results of the assessee. v)The Learned AO/TPO/DRP have failed to identify a comparable in terms of Rule 10B(3). vi)The Learned TPO/DRP erred in rejecting certain comparables on unsustainable and untenable grounds/reasons while considering comparables which failed to meet the filters /criteria as required under law. vii) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in not granting the variances deduction envisaged in the Act and Circular. The Learned TPO / DRP have failed to apply the provisions of Rule 10B(4)&(5) while selecting the criteria and filters. viii)The learned TPO / DRP erred in rejecting R & D expense more than 3% on turnover to eliminate companies engaged in R & D activities. ix)The learned TPO / DRP erred in applying the software development service income threshold of 25% to sales to select comparable companies. x)The learned TPO / DRP erred in rejecting the comparable companies having ratio of employee cost to sales less than 25%. xi)The Learned TPO/DRP erred in rejecting the following companies as comparables rejecting the submissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enses amounting to Rs. 2,13,61,446/- for non deduction of tax at source u/s 40(i) (ia) of the Act. 24. The Learned AO / DRP erred in disallowing provision for miscellaneous expenses amounting to Rs. 2,20,49,241/- for non deduction of tax at source u/s 40(i) (ia) of the Act. 25.The Learned AO / DRP erred in disallowing provision for Repairs and Maintenance amounting to Rs. 30,46,754/- for non deduction of tax at source u/s 40(i)(ia) of the Act. 26.The AO/DRP failed to appreciate and consider that if payees/receivers / deductees have paid the tax then no disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 27.The above disallowances have been made without providing sufficient and adequate opportunity as required under law and the Act. On this ground alone the above disallowances requires to be deleted. 28.The Learned AO/DRP erred in restricting relief u/s 90 of the Act to Rs. 14,31,191/- as against the claim of Rs. 55,64,950/-. . 29.The Learned AO/DRP erred in restricting TDS credit to Rs. 7,78,41,810/-as against the claim of Rs. 8,66,48,067/-. Issue of interest u/s 234A & C. 30.The appellant denies the liabilities....