TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 654
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y engaged in the business of creating semiconductors, systems solutions and software that deliver better sensory experiences in mobile phones, personal media players, identification applications, cars and a wide range of other electronic devices. It has filed its Return of Income on 28.11.2014 declaring a total income of Rs. 29,14,35,490/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) dated 29.08.2015 and 142(1) 08.09.2017 were issued. In compliance, authorized representatives of the Assessee Company appeared on various dates and furnished relevant details. The Assessing Officer observing that the assessee has entered into international transaction with its AE, referred the matter to the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (in sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rect appreciation of facts and wrong interpretation of law and therefore, are bad in law. 2. The learned AO has erred in assessing the total income at INR 49,93,46,340 as against the returned income of INR 29,14,35,490 computed by the Appellant in its return of income for AY 2014-15. 3. The learned AO has erred in laws and in facts, in determining a sum of INR 10,76,56,487 as the balance tax (including interest) demand payable by the Appellant. 4. Transfer Pricing grounds 4.1 The learned DRP/AO/TPO erred in making an addition of INR 21,03,55, 133 to the total income of the Appellant on account of adjustment in the arm's length price (*ALP") of the provision of software development services transaction entered by the Appellant wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts, by exercising his powers under section 133(6) of the Act to obtain information which was not available in public domain and relying on the same for comparability purposes. 4.6 The learned DRP/AO/TPO erred, in law and in facts, by accepting/rejecting companies based on unreasonable comparability criteria: a) The learned DRP/AO/TPO erred, by accepting certain additional comparable companies by conducting a fresh independent search during TP assessment proceedings which are functionally dissimilar; * Infosys Ltd. * Thirdware Solution Limited b) The learned DRP/AO/TPO erred, by accepting certain additional comparable companies by conducting a fresh independent search during TP assessment proceedings which are functionally dissim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les. 4.8 The learned DRP/AO/TPO erred, in law and in facts, by not making suitable adjustments on account of differences in the risk profile of the Appellant vis-a-vis the comparables, while conducting comparability analysis. 4.9 The learned DRP/AO/TPO have erred in law and facts by determining a transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest on outstanding receivables amounting to INR 1,08,114. 4.10 Without prejudice to our ground of objection 4.9 above, the learned DRP/AO/TPO have erred, in law and in facts, by not appreciating that the outstanding trade receivables from its AEs is arising from the provision of software development services transaction which is to be considered as closely linked to such transaction and should no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istent Systems Ltd. v. Thirdware Solutions Ltd. vi. R.S. Software (India) Ltd. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a brief synopsis, wherein, he has pointed out as to why these comparables are required to be excluded. Similarly, ld. counsel for the assessee argued that the ld. TPO has wrongly excluded the following companies from the list of comparables chosen by the assessee. i. Sagarsoft India Limited, ii. Akshay Software Technologies Ltd. iii. CAT Technologies Limited iv. Lucid Software Limited 7. It is the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that these companies are functionally similar of that of assessee and also qualifies various filters applicable in the case of the assessee. 8. The Ld. DR relied ....