TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 874
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-02-2022 respectively. Since some of the issues raised in these appeals are common, we are, ergo, proceedings to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. Before proceeding with the instant appeals, it is pertinent to mention that the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2015-16 was a part of batch of three appeals, including the two under consideration. All the three appeals were listed for hearing on 26-09-2022. The lead appeal for the A.Y. 2015-16 was heard at length on that date. For paucity of time, the instant appeals could not be taken up on that day and hence were adjourned for today. Some of the issues raised in the current batch of appeals are similar to those in the appeal for the A.Y. 2015-16.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee; evidence furnished by the assessee; report, if any, of the Assessing Officer, Valuation Officer or Transfer Pricing Officer or any other authority; and records relating to the draft order. This shows that the direction is issued by the DRP after giving full opportunity of hearing to the assessee, which is further ostensible from sub-section (11), unequivocally providing to that extent, by stating that no direction under sub-section (5) shall be issued unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee on such directions which are prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. Sub-section (13) of 144C provides that: `Upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5), the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 11 of Income-tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009, is only a procedural requirement put in place by delegated legislation, without any corresponding provision in the enactment. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that non-service of the direction of the DRP to the assessee would vitiate the final assessment order itself. 5. Notwithstanding the above position, the ld. AR candidly admitted before the Tribunal that, on the assessee writing to the DRP about non-communication of the direction, the DRP responded by mentioning that direction dated 11-03-2021 was promptly e-mailed to the assessee on that very date itself. No adverse contrary evidence has been brought to our notice on behalf of the assessee. Under such circumsta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the A.Y. 2015-16 without making any separate submission for the year under consideration. 8. We have passed a separate order today for the A.Y. 2015-16 in which the TPO's approach of segregating the payment of Royalty transaction from the other international transactions under the combined 'Manufacturing segment' has been countenanced and the matter concerning the determination of the ALP of the Royalty payment in respect of export sales has been sent back to the DRP for disposing of the assessee's objections raised before it, which were inadvertently omitted to be disposed of. Following the view taken by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2015- 16, we approve the segregation of payment of Royalty from other international transactions under the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs. However, in the Computation sheet, the AO omitted to grant the deduction of Rs.6.00 crore, as is apparent from column no.12 showing the figure of 'zero' against the total deduction against Chapter VI-A. Under such circumstances, we direct the AO to verify the assessee's contention and allow deduction of Rs.6.00 crore, if not earlier allowed, after due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 12. Ground no.9 is against short deduction of TDS credit amounting to Rs.3,51,818/-. The AO is directed to verify the assessee's contention and allow the necessary credit, if not earlier allowed. 13. Last ground about the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) is premature and hence dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal is partly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion before the concerned AO. The DRP upheld the adoption of income at Rs.562.17 crore as processed u/s.143(1) as base point for computing total income. It, however, directed that: "in case the CPC passes any rectification order revising the total income computed u/s.143(1) of the Act in future, the AO is directed to adopt the figure as per such rectification order". The ld. AR contended that the application u/s.154 has still not been disposed of. Under such circumstances, we direct the disposal of the application made by the assessee u/s.154 of the Act and then make suitable changes to the figure of income u/s.143(1) as the base figure for determining income u/s.143(3), if warranted. 18. Ground no.7 is against short granting of credit of....