2022 (9) TMI 453

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....: "The Grounds mentioned hereinafter are without prejudice to each other Wrong characterization 1. The Learned TPO erred in characterizing the services rendered by the appellant erroneously as ITES whereas the appellant renders staff recruitment services, which has vitiated the comparability analysis; Defective comparability analysis 2. The Learned TPO erred in collating the information that are not publicly available by using powers u/s. 133(6) of the Act, without providing the same to the appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice; 3. The Learned TPO erred in rejecting the comparability analysis undertaken in the TP documentation and conducting a fresh comparability....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty to the appellant Wrong computation of Margin 8. The Learned TPO has committed mistakes in computation of margin and has failed to follow the directions of the DRP in this regard; Working Capital adjustment 9. The Learned TPO/DRP erred in not allowing the working capital adjustment, at actuals, as upheld by the judicial authorities;" 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the main issue raked up by assessee in the present appeal is in considering the services rendered by assessee to be ITES by the Ld. TPO, as against back office support services carried considered by assessee. She submitted that the Ld. TPO himself in para 2 has observed as under: 2. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE TAXPAYER ....