TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the case, and in law: 1. The assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO') under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act persuant to the directions of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. DRP') is bad in law and void ab-initio. 2. The final assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is barred by limitation as it has not been passed after taking into consideration the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer's ("Ld. TPO") order which has been passed subsequent to the time limit prescribed for passing the final assessment order. 3 The Ld. AO has erred in proceeding to compute the total income of the assessee by making an addition of INR 80,746,954, without being in conformity with the Arms L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidered as a trading liability. 4.6 not appreciating the fact that there is no cessation or remission of liability as the amount is still appearing as payable in the books of accounts of the appellant for the relevant previous year i.e. FY 2008-09. 4.7 doubting the genuineness of creditors on the basis of unfounded assumptions and without bringing any material on record to doubt the genuineness. 4.8 not seeking the independent confirmations from the creditors inspite of powers available to the Ld. AO under the provisions of the Act. 5. The Ld. AO (following the directions of the Ld. DRP) has erred in making disallowance of INR 201,134,971 by treating advances received from customers as income chargeable t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2003 and accordingly the deduction under section 80 IA (4) of the Act could be claimed by the appellant from the Assessment Year 2004-05. 7.2 The Ld. AO has failed to appreciate the fact that since AY 2004-05, the appellant has been continuously incurring losses and accordingly no deduction under section 80 IA(4) of the Act was claimed. 7.3 The Ld.AO has failed to appreciate the fact that appellant reported losses in its current year's return of income and accordingly no deduction u/s 80 IA (4) of the Act could have been claimed. 7.4 The Ld. AO has erred in stating that the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions required for claiming deduction u/s 80 IA (4) of the Act. 7.5 The Ld. AO has further erred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmination of Rs. 8,07,46,954/-. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 30.01.2014 passed final assessment order in absence of revised TPO Order in respect of DRP directions to the TPO and assessed the income without following the directions given by the DRP on TP adjustment and assessed the total income at Rs. 17,43,13,380/-. Subsequently, the Transfer Pricing Officer vide order dated 21.02.2014 passed an order giving effect to DRP directions and deleted the Transfer Pricing adjustment to the extent of Rs. 8,07,46,954/- as well as corporate tax additions/disallowance was reduced to Rs. 46,80,81,858/-. 5. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the Assessment Order for both Transfer Pricing issues as well as corporate tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer u/s 154 has rectified the original assessment order well within time thereby deleting the entire Transfer Pricing adjustment. Thus, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessment order is just and proper, therefore, it should not be quashed. 9. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions of the Tribunal: i. Flextronics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Circle 3(1)(1), Banalore [IT(TP)A No.832/Bang/2017] ii. Software Paradigms Infotech (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2018] 89 taxmann.com 339 (ITAT Bangalore) iii. July Systems & Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2018] IT(TP) A No.368/Bang/2016 (ITAT Bangalore) iv. ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie vs. Union of India [2016] 388 ITR 383 10. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Transfer Pricing Officer. The Assessing Officer was very well aware that the DRP has given certain directions to the Transfer Pricing Officer and it is binding on the Assessing Officer to follow every direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel as per as per Section 144C(10) of the Act. Sub-Section (10) of Section 144C is not procedural but a mandatory requirement. If the Transfer Pricing Officer has not passed any order, the Assessing Officer should have taken into account the DRP's direction and would have taken cognizance in the final assessment order, but the Assessing Officer choose not to follow the DRP's direction. Subsequently, when the Transfer Pricing Officer passed the order giving effect to DRP's directions vide order ....