TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1550
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "The order of the TPO /DRP /Assessing Officer in so far as it is against the Appellant, is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The appellant denies itself to be assessed on a total income of Rs. 3,82,59,3501- as against income of Rs. 1.09,28,410/- as declared by the appellant. 3. a) The order of the assessment is bad in law as the mandatory conditions to invoke the jurisdiction under section 92CA of the Act did not exist, or having not been complied with and consequently the orders of the assessing officer is bad in law for want of requisite jurisdiction. b) Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the determination of ALP by using arithmetic mean of different comparables not warranted. 10. The TPO, DRP and the Assessing Officer erred in selecting the following new companies as comparables towards software development services under the facts and circumstances of the case a) Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., b) Infosys Ltd c) Kals Information Systems Ltd., d) Larsen &Tubro infotech e) Mindtree Ltd., J) Persistent Systems Ltd., g) Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd., h) Tata Elsxi Ltd., i) Zylog Systems Ltd., H. The TPO, DRP and the Assessing Officer erred in selecting the following new companies as comparables towards IT Enabled Services (ITES) under the facts and / circumstances of the case a) Accenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of section 144C(8) of the Act. 17. The assessment order passed is bad in law as the order ought to have been passed under section 143(3) r.v.s 144C of the Act and not under section under section 143(3) r.w.s 92CA of the Act. 18. The appellant denies itself liable to be levied to interest under section 234B of the Act and further the computation of interest under section 234B was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period and method of calculation of interest under the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant expressly urges that the period of levy of interest is not in accordance with section 234B of the Act. 19. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete, modify any of the grounds which are urged a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions of sec. 144C of the Act, the AO is bound to have passed the final order of assessment in conformity with the directions of the DRP within one month from the end of the month which such directions are issued; but failed to do so. In this context, the Id DR drew the attention of the bench to the impugned final order of assessment to illustrate that the same was passed on 17/1/2014 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 92CA of the Act and not as it should have been; u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act in conformity with the DRP's directions issued u/s 144C(5) of the Act on 30/12/2013 as was mandatorily required and this has rendered the impugned order bad in law. The ld AR contends that the aforesaid contentions are in order. In this context the id AR drew ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....considered the material on record. The undisputed facts on record, as brought out by the discussions above, is that the AO, as per law, was required to pass the final order of assessment dated 17/1/2014 for asst. year 2009-10 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act in conformity with the directions issued by the DRP u/s 144C(5) of the Act, which are binding on him as per section 144C(10) thereof and within the time prescribed u/s 144C(13) of the Act. We find that instead of passing the final order of assessment as required by law, the AO passed the impugned final order of assessment dated 17/1/2014 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 92CA of the Act; which, as contended by the id AR, is identical to the draft order of assessment passed on 14/3/2013 by only incorpora....