TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1508
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Corporation Canada, previously known as CDC Software India P. Ltd, is primarily engaged in software development services in various sectors for clients of the holding company. It provides programming, customisation, modification and support services to the holding company's information technology software and systems also. It has entered into a service agreement with the holding company to render these services which are charged to the holding company on a fully loaded cost basis at a predetermined mark-up on such costs. For the impugned assessment year, it filed its return on 29.11.2012 declaring a total income of Rs. 6,44,51,680/-. The TPO passed an order u/s.92CA determining the average net operating margin at 22.63% and provided worki....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 2 Persistent Systems Ltd 3 Mind Tree Ltd t) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the appellant being a captive service provider runs a 'single customer risk' and the comparables since dealing in open market are prone to the marketing and technical risks. Accordingly, the authorities failed to provide suitable risk adjustment on the facts of the case. g) Determination of ALP in terms of Rule was not undertaken. h) The authorities below erred in rejecting the application of Rule 10(B)(4) and Rule In view of above facts, pleading and submission, it is prayed that your Honours be pleased to without limituli01L- 1. Hold that the order of assessment is without jurisdiction and hence needs to be set a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be made in case of the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Hold that the determination of ALP must be done in accordance with Rule of the Rules; and thus hold that even if one of the comparables selected by the appellant satisfies the computation mechanism for determination of the ALP, the determination of ALP by using arithmetic mean of different comparables is not warranted under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Hold that the TPO, DRP and the Assessing Officer erred in not granting the benefit ofthe proviso to section 92C(2) ofthe Act. 11. Hold that the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act is not is accordance with law under the facts and circumstances of the appellant's ea....