AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 279
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 29.04.2021 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the AO or Assessing officer') which was passed on the transfer pricing order dated 30.10.2019 and the DRP-2, New Delhi directions dated 16.03.2021 u/s 144C(5) of the Act. 2. The facts in brief are that Orbitz India (here in after referred as the assessee) filed its Return of Income ('ROI') for Assessment Year ('AY') 2016-17 on November 30, 2016 declaring a taxable income of INR 3,92,43,670 and same was selected for limited scrutiny assessment proceedings vide issuance of notices u/s 143(2) of the Act dated July 17, 2017 and July 13, 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2CA of the Act has been made to the returned income of Orbitz India and the total income has been assessed at INR 5,68,02,705. Consequently, a demand of INR 95,93,090 has been raised vide the notice of demand u/s 156 of the Act. 3. The assessee raised following grounds of appeal : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the NeAC erred in assessing the total income under normal provisions of the Act at INR 5,68,02,710 as against INR 3,92,43,670 declared by the Appellant in the Return of Income. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the final assessment order passed by the NeAC is void ab initio for the reason that the order has been passed in the name of a nonexistent entity (i.e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ('TP') documentation maintained by it in terms of Section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules"). 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law the Ld. TPO erroneously rejected the operating margin computation of the Appellant and has incorrectly treated "liabilities written back" as non-operating income and "irrecoverable balance written off' as operating expense while computing the operating profit/operating cost. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. TPO erred in including Infosys B P M Ltd. in the final set of comparable, which is not comparable to the Appellant due to its diversified operations which are functionally dissimilar to the Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 and submitted that the assessee Orbitz India Services Private Limited ('Orbitz India') had merged with the appellant Expedia Online Travel Services India Private Limited from an appointed date of October 31, 2018 vide order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi Bench ('NCLT') issued on August 7, 2020. The NCLT order was filed by Orbitz India with the Registrar of Companies ('ROC') pursuant to which, effective from September 1, 2020, Orbitz India stands dissolved. It is submitted that the AO of Orbitz India was intimated by the NCLT regarding the amalgamation scheme filed before it in the case of Orbitz India, which was proposed to be merged with Expedia India, vide letter dated January 30, 2020. In response to the same, the Ld.AO of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompany), which had ceased to exist in the eyes of law pursuant to merger with Expedia India. Therefore, these orders are null and void ab initio. 11. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019] 416 ITR 613 (Supreme Court). Further, reliance is placed on the decision of Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax [ITA no. 475 & 476 of 2011] (Delhi High Court) and it was submitted that SLP filed by revenue against said decision dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Spice Enfotainment Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 285 of 2014 (SC). Reliance was also be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble D....