TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 484
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation petition and after hearing the Ld. AR the delay of 1 day in filing of this appeal by the Revenue is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds before the Tribunal: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the final assessment order dated 30 January 2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1 (1), Hyderabad ('AO') u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ('Act') read with order dated 24 September 2013 issued by Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, pursuant to the directions dated 28 November 2014 by Dispute Resolution Panel, Hyderabad ('DRP') u/s 144C(8) of the Act is bad in law and void ab-initio. General 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO /DRP erred in confirming transfer pricing adjustment of Rs 15,82,39,054 with respect to provision of Software Development Services ('SOS') by the Appellant to its Associated Enterprise. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utation of comparable companies as selected by TPO. Rejection of comparable companies 11. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP erred in confirming the rejection of the following comparable companies, as rejected by the TPO: a) Akshay Software Technologies Ltd; b) LGS Global Ltd; c) R Systems International Ltd; d) Quintegra Solutions Ltd; e) Allgo Embedded Systems Private Ltd; and f) Lucid Software Ltd. Use of filters 12. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP erred in upholding the use of the following additional filters in undertaking the comparative analysis: a) Employee cost filter; b) Related party transactions filter; c) Diminishing revenue filter; d) Persistent loss filter; e) Different financial year-end filter; and f) Companies having extreme profit margin Rejection of use of multiple year data 13. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO /DRP erred in rejecting the use of multiple year data and using data for the FY 2009-10 only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case, the Hon'ble DRP was not justified in directing the A.O to delete Larsen & Tourbo Infotech Ltd on the ground of having high turnover which is contrary to Rule 1OB(2) which prescribes comparability of international transactions with uncontrolled transactions with reference to functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed? (ii) In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble DRP was not justified in directing the TPO to exclude companies in the event of any merger / acquisition without proving that it has really impacted the profit margin and now the company became functionally different. (iii) In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble DRP was not justified in rejecting Mindtree Ltd stating that acquisition/merger is an extraordinary event ignoring the fact that the company was considered at segmental level and even if the same is considered to be true, still the merger / acquisition does not influence segmental results? (iv) In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble DRP erred in adopting LIBOR rates as the appropriate rate to charge interest on receivables without appreciating ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed objections before the Ld. DRP against the draft assessment order dated 07/03/2014. The Ld. DRP vide its order dated 28/11/2014, directed the Ld. TPO to (i) exclude two comparable's i.e. Infosys Technologies and L&T Infotech from the list of comparable and to rework the ALP, [ii] verify the effect of extraordinary events like acquisition, merger and restructuring of companies in four companies named in its order and (iii) charge interest at LIBOR+2% of the inter- company receivables, as against 12% adopted by the Ld. TPO. Accordingly, the Ld. TPO in order to give effect to the directions of Ld. DRP, suggested an adjustment of Rs. 15,82,39,054/-. Finally, considering the recommendations of the Ld. TPO, the Ld. AO passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act on 30/01/2015 making the TP adjustment of Rs. 15,82,39,054/- and assessing the total income at Rs. 15,14,05,628/-. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the final order of the Ld. AO, the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. Appeal of the assessee 10. At the time of arguments before the Bench, learned AR submitted that Ground no. 4 raised by the assessee will have bearing on the other gr....