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

.... Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals) -19, New 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 mod....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of comparable companies on extraneous and irrelevant basis. 9. Ld. CIT-A has erred in rejecting 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) as well as the TPO/AO arbitrarily included and rejected companies in the final set 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 a....