Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2021 (2) TMI 1332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Delhi( "CIT(A)") in Appeal no 33/28/15-16 filed against Assessment order dated 30.3.2015, passed under section 143(3) by Ld. Assessing Officer on the following grounds , which are independent and without prejudice to each other: 1. Impugned order erred in not deleting Transfer pricing adjustment made to returned income in respect of international transaction of provision of sales and marketing support services by the Appellant to its associated enterprise ("AE") (" impugned transaction"). 2. Impugned order erred in not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with provisions of the Act read with the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") and modifying the same for determination of arm's length price ("A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cting the alternate analysis furnished during the course of appellate proceedings citing Rule 46A of the Rules. Without prejudice to the above, impugned order has also erred in arbitrarily selecting certain companies therefrom to arrive at final set of comparables, thereby resorting to cherry-picking of comparables to benchmark the impugned transaction. 10. Ld. TPO / AO / CIT-A have failed to make appropriate adjustments to account for differences in working capital of the Appellant vis-a-vis comparables. 11. Ld. TPO/ AO / CIT(A) have failed to make appropriate adjustments to account for the differences in the risk profile of the Appellant vis-a-vis the comparables. 12. Impugned order has erred in not deleting initiation of penalty....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of comparable companies on extraneous and irrelevant basis. In-fact, the Revenue authorities failed to understand the functions performed, assets employed and risk assume (FAR profile) of the assessee company in the impugned transaction. In fact, the Revenue Authorities are not correct in holding that the assessee is an advertisement and marketing agency while as per the records, the assessee is in marketing and support service providers thereby vitiating the comparability analysis so undertaken. The Ld. AR submitted that in the subsequent Assessment Year i.e. Assessment Year 2013-14, the assessee's profile was accepted that the assessee is not an advertisement or management company. This position has remained accepted in Assessment Year 20....