2023 (3) TMI 458

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....P) u/s 144C(5) dated 30.12.2016. The Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer-2(1), Chennai (TPO) has determined Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transactions u/s 92CA(3) vide order dated 27.01.2015. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: - 1. The order of The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry Circle, Pondicherry dated 15.02.2017 u/s 143(3) r/w section 144C(5) of the Act for the above assessment year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The DCIT erred in mechanically adopting the directions of the DRP vide order dated 30.12.2016 in computing the taxable total income for the Assessment Year under consideration without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The DCIT failed to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....two counts was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. 9. The DCIT failed to appreciate that the sustenance of the said addition for the payments made to the outsourced agencies without considering the prescription of DTAAs was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. 10. The DCIT erred in disallowing Rs.1,64,24,085/- being the loss suffered in dealing in forex derivatives on the misconstruction of section 43(5) of the Act and consequently erred in adding back such sum in the computation of taxable total income both under normal computation as well as in the MAT regime without assigning proper reasons and justification. 11. The DCIT erred in quantifying the notional expenses ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....per Sec. 92B(1). The maximum credit period was accepted to be 90 days and outstanding receivables beyond that time period were benchmarked at prime lending rate of 14.4%. The same resulted in to an adjustment of Rs.57.14 Lacs. 3.2 Before DRP, the assessee submitted that it did not charge any interest from AE as well as non-AEs. No finance cost was incurred. The delayed realization was beyond the control of the assessee and not to bestow any benefit on the AE. It was also submitted that the assessee was a zero debt company and it did not have any borrowings from external sources and therefore, it was not required to pay any interest. Further, Ld. TPO having chosen TNMM method erred in making further adjustment for interest on overdue receiv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oreign nationals and the services were rendered outside India. These vendors do not have permanent establishment in India and therefore, the income would not arise in India. However, the assessee could not produce any agreement to demonstrate the nature of services availed by the assessee. The services were termed as technical services u/s 9(1)(vii) which would require TDS u/s 195. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) was made by Ld. AO. 4.2 The position remained the same before Ld. DRP and the assessee could not submit requisite documentary evidences in support of its claim. Accordingly, this issue was held against the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4.3 It emerges that the assessee could not file any ....