AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts return of income on 30.11.2017 declaring total income of INR 254,90,10,347. The assessee had entered into various international transactions as described in the stay application. For the purposes of benchmarking its international transactions within the segment, the assessee used TNMM as the most appropriate method. The issues were referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO" in short). On the basis of analysis the TPO proposed an adjustment of Rs. 108,25,75,978 to the total income of the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order, proposing to assess the income of the assessee at INR 363,15,86,325 as against the returned income of INR 254,90,10,347. Aggrieved against this, the assessee filed objection....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gnorance of the objections/grounds preferred by the assessee. It is submitted that the DRP while issuing directions has made a complete mockery of the safeguards enshrined in the statute and had closed their eyes to the claims made by the assessee. Even the additional evidences and additional ground preferred by the assessee have not been addressed by the DRP. 6. Learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the direction issued by the DRP. He contended that on perusal of directions it can be clearly seen that there was no discussion/finding given in respect of the objections raised by the assessee qua 'distribution segment', 'light processing segment', 'provision of research and engineering', 'provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt', 'distribution segment', 'provision of research and engineering', 'provision of administrative services' and 'import of Rynaxpyr Technical'. The assessee also filed additional evidences in support of its contention. 9. It is noteworthy that before DRP the assessee had made submissions against the remand report, as reproduced herein below: "It is humbly submitted that we had filed additional evidences and additional grounds vide our submission dated Nov 12, 2021 and Nov 10, 2021 respectively. Your goodself had called for remand report from the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer. We are in receipt of the said remand report vide your email dated 05th Jan, 2022. We would like to submit that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed average NPM for financial years (FY) 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 and left other companies with greater margin for assessee's convenience. The TPO in its order has a search on the database & identified the set of comparables companies based on functional profile and risks assumed by the tested party." The Assessee duly submitted search process and its results as part of submission for additional ground however Ld. TPO has not highlighted any company which is functionally comparable but left out by Assessee due to higher NPM. The Ld. TPO, instead of giving his comments on functional comparability of 10 additional comparables, has provided generalised comment saying that Assessee has done cherry picking selecting companies wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly 4-5 Invoices and criteria of CUP do not satisfy merely furnishing 4-5 invoices between common parties. It is submitted that DIOSA sold only 10,000 kgs to Assessee whereas total 32,000 kgs (4 Invoices) were sold to third party. Thus, Assessee has submitted complete data available for CUP to arrive arm's length price and as such there is no requirement to submit complete sale listing of DIOSA. The criteria to reject CUP on the basis of distance of delivery location is incorrect and unjustified. Ld. TPO has factually made mistake in stating that Huangpu, China is at larger distance than Mumbai, India from Alabama, USA whereas Mumbai, India is at larger distance than Huangpu, China from Alabama, USA. d) The Assessee sub....