TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 337
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted by assessee that, Ansaldo STS, Netherlands transferred the equity shares held by it in assessee company to Ansaldo STS, Australia Pty Ltd. who became the immediate holding company w.e.f. June 2008. 3. At the outset Ld. AR submitted that, during the year under consideration assessee undertook various projects for installation and commissioning of signalling systems for Indian Railways. It has been submitted that these projects were procured by assessee by way of open tender floated by Government of India. Ld. AR submitted that assessee on receipt of tender, undertook the activity of supply of signalling systems and provided engineering design support services are akin to software development services to Ansaldo Group. Ld. AR submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....segment being exchange fluctuation, bank charges, interest charges, management fee. Ld. AR also submitted that, Ld. TPO proposed such comparables that either did not have segmental details or were not functionally similar with assessee. 6. Ld. TPO thus aggregated exchange fluctuation, bank charges, management fees with the manufacturing segment and computed proposed adjustment being shortfall at Rs. 12,12,26,284/-. 7. Ld. AO while passing draft assessment order further disallowed a sum of Rs. 3,17,96,698/- being notional forex loss computed by Ld. TPO/AO while passing the draft assessment order by relying on decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Indian overseas bank vs. CIT reported in 250 ITR 146. 8. Aggrieved by proposed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itional evidence under Rule 29 for admission, could not be filed before the authorities below due to circumstances beyond control. He submitted that these documents establish the losses incurred by assessee, was mainly due to delay in completion of the projects are not attributable to transaction entered with AE. 12. Ld. AR further submitted that during the Transfer Pricing assessment proceedings, Ld. TPO did not demonstrate the basis on which the comparables were selected in the show cause notice. He submitted that, Ld. TPO also has not discussed the FAR similarities of assessee with proposed comparables to ascertain functional similarities as necessitated under Transfer Pricing provisions of law. 13. Ld. AR thus requested for the issue ....