TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 788
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee wish to restrict its arguments only to Ground nos. 2.1 and 2.2 pertaining to the adjustment made under transfer pricing provisions. He also submitted that these issues are covered by decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12 in ITA Nos. 615 & 496/Bang/2015 by order dated 25.09.2020. Accordingly we are restricting this order by adjudicating Grounds 2.1 and 2.2 raised by the assessee in the present appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The Ld.AR submitted that assessee is a pharmaceutical data analysis and pharmaceutical market research company. It filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AE falls within the range of +/- 5% of the arms length price so determined. 3.7 In respect of the corporate tax issues raised by assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the disallowances made by the Ld.AO in respect of 14A, but directed the Ld.AO to verify MAT credit admissibility. 3.8 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. As submitted by the Ld.AR, the only issue that needs consideration regarding Ground no. 2.1, wherein the assessee is challenging the selection of tested party by the Ld.TPO to be the assessee itself. 4.1 It is submitted that Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2011-12 in assessee's own case upheld the foreign AE to be the tested party by observing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the respective country selected by the assessee in TP study and such foreign AE selected as tested party and there is no need to compare with the data of the assessee company. More over when it is admitted by DRP that the functions and risks of the assessee are more complex in nature and numerous adjustments would have to be made, in our considered opinion, as per the Tribunal order cited by learned AR of the assessee having been rendered in the case of Ranbaxy (supra), the foreign AEs in the present case should be considered as tested party as has been considered by the assessee in the TP study......................" 4.2 The Ld.DR on the contrary relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. We have perused the submissions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2 1.3 1.4 Honble ITT Annexure 1 Tax effect (in INR) ol No o graines Prence Assessment and reference to Transfer Pricing Officer are bad in law The order dated 09 March 2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 ('Ld. CIT(A)) under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act'), is bad in law and on facts. The order dated 25 April 2016 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2) ('Ld. AO") under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C (13) of the Act, is bad in law and on facts. The Ld. AO erred in assessing the income of the Appellant as INR 43,098,033 as against the income of INR 24,940,420 offered by the Appellant in its return of income (ROI). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciating the fact that even if the arm's length mark-up was nil, as per second proviso to section 92C(2) variation of +/- 5% between the Arm's Length Price and price at which international transaction has actually been undertaken can be considered to be at arm's length. The same was also upheld in the aforesaid Hon'ble ITAT's order in Appellant's own case. Determination of arm's length price of international transactions The Ld.AO/ Ld. TPO grossly erred on facts and in law in rejecting the Transfer Pricing study maintained by the Appellant without considering the facts of the Appellant. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO. The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO and the Ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rty and wrongly comparing the Appellant's activities without considering the differences in functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed by the Appellant vis-Ã -vis comparable companies. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the Ld. A.O/ Ld. TPO. Tax effect (in INR) Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred in not appreciating the benchmarking conducted by the Appellant for comparable companies engaged in rendering business development, sales and support services in India. The AO/TPO erred in law and on facts in disregarding the application of multiple- year data while computing the margins of comparable companies. Variation of +/-5% from the arithmet....