TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 2125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he facts of the case. Grounds of appeal qua the transfer pricing matters - 3. The Ld. DRP[FPO erred in making an addition of Rs. 31,07,95,547 to the total income of the Appellant on account of adjustment in the arms length price of the international transactions entered by the Appellant. 4. The Ld. DRPPO have erred in enhancing the TP adjustment from Rs. 29,55,15,684 to Rs. 31,07,95,547 without putting the Appellant to notice. 5. The Ld. DRP/TPO have erred in not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant and suo moto conducting a fresh economic analysis for determination of ALP. 6. The Ld. DRP/TPO have erred in law and on facts in arbitrarily selecting Infosys BPO Limited. Hartron Communications Limited and Capgemini Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. as comparable even though they are incomparable oil ground of dissimilarity of functions performed. assets employed or / and risk. 7. The Ld. DRP/TPO erred in law and oil in incorrectly computing OP/OC ratio of Hartron Communications Limited and E4e Healthcare Business Services Private Limited. 8. The Ld. DRP /TPO erred in law in Rejecting and thus excludi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 17. The Ld. DRP/AO have erred in law and on facts in not granting current year depreciation at the rate of 60% on software expenditure disallowed as capital in nature in the earlier years. Other grounds 18. The DRP/AO have erred in law and on facts in levying interest of Rs. 5.70.73,182 under section 234B and 234C of the Act. 19. That the Ld. DRP/AO have erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee filed the following revised additional grounds of appeal: 02. At the outset the Ld. AR for the assessee had submitted that the Grounds 1, 2 and 3 are general in nature, whereas grounds 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 to 19 are not pressed. It was also submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee had filed the application for additional ground for admitting the same vide letter dated 18.05.2018 and it was submitted that the assessee had given elaborate reason in the application for admitting the additional ground. It was submitted that the grounds now sought to be treated as additional grounds are required to be considered as sufficient material, as the fresh material would be required to be considered by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07. In respect of Capgemini Business Services India P. Ltd, the Ld. AR had drawn our attention to page 11 of the DRP order where the assessee's contentions are recorded as under: 2 Capgemini Business Services India P. Ltd * Functionality different as the company is engaged in providing Business Process Management Services and Assurance and Compliance services. No segmental information is available. * Brand Value 08. On the basis of the above the Ld. AR submitted that the TPO / DRP both have not discussed and examined the objections raised by the assessee on the basis of which the assessee has sought exclusion and the DRP in a cryptic and stereotyped manner had passed the order without considering in detail the objections raised by the assessee. 09. Per contra the Ld. DR had submitted that she relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. From a perusal of the order reproduced here in above and the objection raised by the assessee, it is clear that the assessee has raised multiple objections. But the DRP while passing the order had restricted to adjudication of one or two objecti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as comparable. 13. By way of additional ground it was submitted that this company is not comparable as the assessee had submitted before us that RPT of this comparable is 100% and therefore this fact was required to be examined. However with respect to e4e Healthcare Business Services P. Ltd, no objection was raised or order was passed by the DRP. Before us it was submitted in respect to both the comparables that these were required to go back to the TPO for examination as both the companies are into healthcare services and the RPT is more than 15% and therefore these companies are to be excluded. Similarly our attention was drawn to page 97 of APB (page 12 of order) where the DRP had dealt with this comparable. Ld AR relied upon various case laws for excluding this comparable 14. On the other hand the Ld. DR had no objection if the matter is sent back to the TPO for consideration afresh. 15. We have heard the rival contentions of the material on record. From the perusal of the above said order of the DRP at page 12 it is clear that the DRP had passed a cryptic stereo type order and had not specifically dealt with all the objections raised by the assessee. In view of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith additional ground no.1, which pertains to risk adjustment. In this regard, the Ld. AR had submitted that the assessee is entitled to risk adjustment in terms of the law laid down in the matter of Hyundai Rotem Company ITA No 510/ DEL/ 2016, Sony India (P) Ltd 114 ITD 448 etc. 20. The Ld. DR submitted that no calculation was provided by the assessee before the DRP or the TPO. Therefore assessee is not entitled to risk adjustment. 21. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. Since we are remanding the matters in respect of nine comparables to the file of TPO therefore we deem it appropriate to remand this matter also back to the file of the AO / TPO with a direction that the assessee shall provide detailed working of the risk assumed by the assessee and also by comparables on the basis of the parameters laid down by various pronouncements including in the matter of Mercedes Benz Research & Development India (P.) Ltd [2018] 90 taxmann.com 300 (Bangalore - Trib.), wherein the Bench had held as under: "7.1 In this ground, Revenue assails the order of the DRP for granting 1% risk adjustment arbitrarily without appreciating the facts of the case and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....putation of risk adjustment of the assessee vis-à-vis the comparable companies, we hold that the assessee shall not be entitled to any risk adjustment and accordingly reverse the DRP's decision granting the assessee risk adjustment. In coming to this view, we place reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Syniverse Teledata Systems (P.) Ltd. (supra) which covers the issue squarely in favour of the revenue in the light of the factual matrix of the case. Consequently, Ground No.4 of Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed." Since in present case computation of risk adjustment is not provided by the assessee, hence respectfully following the decision of the Bench in the matter of Mercedez(supra) we send back additional ground no.1, to the file of TPO. 22. Additional Ground nos.4 pertain to errors in computation of working capital adjustment. The DRP had directed the TPO to work out the working capital adjustment as per its direction. However the TPO while giving effect to the directions of the DRP had repeated the working capital adjustment previously done by the TPO. The Ld. DR had submitted that this....