TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1990
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s without jurisdiction, against the law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, equity and all other known principles of law. 4. That the findings, reasons, conclusions and directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u/s 144C are unsustainable in law requires to be set aside. Consequently the additions based on such directions also requires to be set aside. 5. The DRP erred in not considering the relevant materials, evidences, data and relevant law. The directions issued are without application of mind. 6. That the Order/Directions of the DRP violates the principles of judicial discipline as the binding nature of the orders of the higher appellate authorities have been totally ignored. 7. That the order of the DRP and the directions given therein are bad in law and not as per law requires to be cancelled. 8. That the AO/TPO/DRP erred in not providing adequate and sufficient opportunity as required under law thus violating the principle of natural justice, hence on this ground alone the orders requires to be annulled. ISSUE OF TRANSFER PRICING 9. That the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer is without jurisdiction, ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....paring the appellant's distribution margin with comparables which are not in the business of trading/distribution. v) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in not following their own orders passed for the earlier asst. years on this issue. vi) The selection of the method by the Learned AO / TPO / DRP is not as per law. vii) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in not granting the variances deduction of 5% envisaged in the Act and Circular. viii) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in not carrying out the adjustments as required under law as well as the facts. ix) The Learned AO/TPO/DRP have failed to identify a comparable in terms of Rule 10B(3). x) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in failing to rely on decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case for the years 2002 - 03 to 2004 - 05 and subsequent orders of the ITAT for other assessment years. xi) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in adopting TNMM as the MAM ignoring the findings of ITAT in the appellant's own case for earlier years and accepted by department on the same issue. 15.i) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in making adjustment towards the Arm's Len....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the Investment made in the Share Capital of M/s. GE Healthcare Bangladesh Ltd. 24. The Learned AO / DRP erred in adding back to book profits the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 78,15,500/- on the Investment made in the Share Capital of M/s. GE Healthcare Bangladesh Ltd in accordance with clause (c) of Explanation (1) to section 115JB of the Act. 25. The Learned AO / DRP erred in disallowing dealer commission amounting to Rs. 5,55,31,974/- for non deduction of tax at source. 26. The Learned AO / DRP erred in disallowing advertisement expenses amounting to Rs. 31,01,165/- for non deduction of tax at source. 27. The Learned AO / DRP erred in disallowing Legal and Professional expenses amounting to Rs. 7,04,10,749/- for non deduction of tax at source. 28. The Learned AO / DRP erred in disallowing miscellaneous expenses amounting to Rs. 84,23,540/- for non deduction of tax at source. 29. The Learned AO / DRP erred in disallowing Repairs and Maintenance - Plant and Machinery amounting to Rs. 70,68,325/- for non deduction of tax at source. 30. The Learned AO / DRP erred in disallowing Repairs and Maintenance - Bui....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the TPO. In the earlier years also, the DRP did the same by not admitting the additional evidence filed before them and when the matter reached the Tribunal, the Tribunal has set aside the order of the DRP on all the issues to the TPO to readjudicate the issues in the light of additional evidence filed before the DRP, after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Copies of the orders of the Tribunal for the AYs 2010-11 to 2012-13 are placed on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that since the nature of the activities of the assessee remain the same, the matter may be sent back to the AO/TPO to re-examine the issue afresh, otherwise there would not be independent adjudication by the AO in the earlier years if the Tribunal expresses its views. 3. The ld. DR did not dispute this factual aspect. 4. Having carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities and the orders of the Tribunal for the AYs 2010-11 to 2012-13, we find that in the earlier years also, the DRP did not admit the additional evidence filed before him and the Tribunal for that reason set aside the order of the DRP and restored the matter to the TPO/AO to readju....