TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....014-15. 2. The substantive grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reproduced hereunder: The grounds stated hereunder are independent of, and without prejudice to, one another. The Appellant submits as under: 1 sAssessment and reference to Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer are bad in law a) The final order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(1) ['DCIT' or 'Ld. AO'], is bad on facts and in law. The learned Ld. AO / learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing) - Circle 1(3)(2)[id. TPO'], erred in law and on facts in making an addition to the total income of the Appellant on account of adjustment to the arm's length price with respect to software development support and rela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions greater than 25% of the sales (iii) companies with different financial year ending (i.e., other than 31 March 2014) and (iv) companies having persistent losses. The Ld. Panel erred in upholding the actions of the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO. c) The Ld. AO / Ld. TPO erred in law in applying an arbitrary filter to reject companies having related party transactions greater than 25% of sales. Further, the Hon'ble DRP also erred in upholding the related party transaction filter of 25%, disregarding the Appellant's ground for application of the related party transaction filter at a threshold of 10% or 15% of sales. The Ld. Panel erred in upholding the actions of the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO. d) The Ld. AO / Ld. TPO / Hon'ble DRP erred on facts an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the actions of the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO. Erroneous data used by the Ld. AO / Ld. TPO a) The AO / TPO has erred in law in using data, which was not contemporaneous and which was not available in the public domain at the time of conducting transfer pricing study by the Appellant. The Ld. Panel erred in upholding the actions of the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO. b) The AO / TPO erred in law and on facts in disregarding the application of multiple-year data while computing the margins of the comparable companies. The Ld. Panel erred in upholding the actions of the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO. 4 Non-allowance of appropriate adjustments to the comparable companies, by the Ld. TPO The Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in law and on facts in not allowing appropriate adjustments un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titution or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or during the hearing of the appeal c) The Appellant further prays that the adjustment in relation to Transfer Pricing matters made by the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO and upheld by the Hon'ble DRP be deleted. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the learned AR for the assessee adverted our attention to the application dated 08-01-2020 from the assessee whereby grounds of appeal relating to Transfer Pricing issues pursuant to signing of the Advance Pricing Agreement.(APA) was sought to be withdrawn. 4. Grounds of appeal No.1-5 are thus dismissed as withdrawn. 5. Ground no.6 concerns disallowance under S. 40 (a)(i) of the Act. In the course of hearing, it was pointed out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore the appropriate authority would be withdrawn for claim of tax in assessment year 2012-13 where the disallowance of payments made to M/s Hexaware carried out in assessment year 2012-13 is reversed in assessment year 2014-15 on payment basis. It was further pointed out that the DRP has erred in denying the benefit under proviso to sec.40(a)(i) as not appealable before it. It is thus contended on behalf of the assessee that the benefit of proviso to sec.40(a)(i) of the Act should be granted to the assessee having regard to the actual payments of withholding taxes during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2014-15 in question. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions made on the point and also perused the case records. We....