2024 (8) TMI 922

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Framing the assessment at INR 25,73,35,570 as against the income declared of INR 24,15,04,170 on account of adjustment in the arm's length price (ALP) of the international transactions related to the provision of marketing support services and purchase of chemicals entered into by the Appellant with its Associated Enterprises. Final order passed by Ld. AO not in accordance with law: 2. The final order passed by Ld. AO is void ab initio as the same is not in conformity with law. Rejection of economic analysis of the Appellant: 3. The Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/Hon'ble DRP have erred, in law and in facts, by not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Rules a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 6.4 considering 2 additional functionally dissimilar companies as comparable to the Appellant, which are not comparable in view of the functional profile i.e. provision of marketing support services; 6.5 not allowing economic adjustment for differences on account of risks assumed by the Appellant vis-à-vis the comparable companies; and 6.6 selecting certain companies (which are earning supernormal profits) as comparable to the Appellant to benchmark the impugned transaction. Common Ground: 7. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act against the Appellant." 3. Schlumberger Solutions Service Pvt. Ltd. is an Indian company engaged in the business of providi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vt. Ltd. is engineering consultancy company whereas the assessee is an EPC Management company. Further, the entire income of the comparable Holtec Consulting Pvt. Ltd. is by way of consultancy and hence cannot be compared with an EPC company. The revenue argued that the distinction is devoid of merit as the assessee is also fundamentally a service organization to facilitate execution. We do not find any strength in the argument of the revenue as the functionality of the comparable has not been met with that of assessee. Neil Soft Ltd.: 8. The ld. AR sought to exclude this comparable which has been included by the TPO. The ld. AR submitted that the company is functionally not comparable as Neil Soft Ltd. is engaged in software engineering ....