2025 (4) TMI 874

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee submitted that issues / grounds involved in ITA No. 1877/Del/2015 filed by NTT GDS, the successor company, could not be settled under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme necessitating present misc. application under section 254(2) of the Act, requesting for reinstitution of the appeal bearing ITA No. 1877/Del/2015 with respect to grounds pertaining to transfer pricing adjustment in relation to non-US transactions and corporate tax issues which were dismissed with a liberty to reinstitute. Hence, it was submitted that since ground of Appeal Nos. 10 to 22 has not been resolved pursuant to the provisions of the VSV Act, therefore, assessee seeks to resolve the said dispute under the normal provisions of the Act. 3. Ld. DR did not have any objecti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, 10. The learned AO erred in completing the assessment proceedings by admittedly not giving effect to the directions of the Hon'ble DRP under section 144C(5) of the Act and thereby violating the provisions of section 144C(13) the Act. Since the impugned order does not take into account all the directions of the Hon'ble DRP, the same is bad in law and void ab initio. 11. The learned AO/ Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO) erred in making an addition of INR 11,91,74,817 to the total income of the Appellant on account of adjustment in the arm's length price of the software development services transaction entered by the Appellant with its Non-US AEs; 12. The lear....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the Appellant using 'Employee cost greater than 25 percent of total cost' as a comparability criterion; (e) The learned TPO/AO erred, in law and in facts, by rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the Appellant using 'Export earnings less than 75 percent of operating revenues' as a comparability criterion; 15. The learned TPO/AO has erred, in law and in facts, by accepting / rejecting companies based on unreasonable comparability criteria. 16. The learned TPO/AO erred, in law and in facts, by not considering gains/losses arising out of foreign exchange fluctuations while computing the operating margins of the Appellant as well as comparable companies....