TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1044
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)/ Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO) of INR 16,93,08,9877- to the income of the- Appellant. The Appellant prays that the assessment proceedings be held as bad in law and as such deserve to be quashed. Ground on validity of the order issued in the name of non-existent entity 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in issuing the Transfer Pricing Order under section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on a non-existent company i.e. 'Allscripts (India) Private Limited', thus making the order passed by the Ld. TPO null and void. The Appellant prays that since the order passed by the TPO is bad in law and deserves to be quashed, the Draft Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w. section 144C of the Act and the Final Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w. section 144C(13) of the Act are also bad in law and ought to be quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in issuing the Draft Assessment Order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act on a non-existent company i.e.' Allscripts (India) Private Limited', t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant be accepted and consequently the TP adjustment be deleted. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO / Ld. TPO, following the directions of Ld. DRP, has erred in applying a turnover filter of 10 times lesser and 10 times higher than the turnover of the Appellant. In doing so, the Ld. DRP/ Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO has rejected functionally comparable companies selected by the Appellant. The Appellant prays that the turnover filter adopted by the Ld. TPO be rejected and the functionally comparable companies, as selected by the Appellant in its TP study report be accepted. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO / Ld. TPO, following the directions of Ld. DRP, has erred in selecting functionally dissimilar companies and excluding functionally similar companies. The Appellant prays that the functional dissimilar companies be rejected, and the functionally similar companies be accepted in the set of comparable companies. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, and without prejudice to Appellant's contentions on application of arbitrary turnove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplying the rate of depreciation on computer software of 25% instead of 60% and thereby, disallowing the depreciation of INR 7,51,921 claimed in the return of income. The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to allow the entire claim of depreciation on computer software and the addition made by the Ld. AO be deleted. 15. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO, following the directions of Ld. DRP, erred in not accepting the Appellant's claim for incremental depreciation on the computer software in Assessment Year 2017-18 if the adjustments made in the past years is sustained. The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to accordingly increase the amount of the opening written down value and consequentially, grant the incremental depreciation for AY 2017-18. 16. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in not granting a deduction of INR 27,05,205 under section 80G of the Act. The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant the correct deduction of INR 27,05,205 under section 80G of the Act. 17. On the fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mited (AIPL) was a Private Limited company incorporated in 1988. During Financial Year 2016-17 relevant to assessment year 2017-18, AIPL was converted into Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) on 21 March 2017. The assessee had brought this fact to the notice of the Ld. Assessing Officer (ACIT Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara) vide letter dated 12 August 2019 in response to notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. Further to the above, again in submission filed by the assessee before the DCIT Transfer Pricing-1, Vadodara, the assessee intimated the fact that AIPL had been converted into a LLP. However, despite the aforesaid intimations to the Ld. Assessing Officer and the TPO, the Transfer Pricing Order was passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act by the TPO in the name of AIPL- which was a non-existent entity. Further, the assessee filed submission dated 31 March 2021 before the NEAC, Delhi i.e. the Assessing Officer intimating the fact of conversion of AIPL into LLP. However, the Ld. Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order in the name of AIPL, which is a non-existent entity. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on several judicial in support of the contention that once the order pass....