AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 579
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1-22 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act raising following grounds of appeal :- "General grounds 1. Impugned order appears to be time barred and bad in law as reference made to Ld. TPO under section 92CA does not appear to be in accordance with law. Grounds specific to Transfer Pricing Adjustments 2. Impugned Order erred in making transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 18,84,96,879/- to total income declared by Appellant. 3 Impugned Order erred in rejecting the scientific analysis carried out by the Appellant in its Transfer Pricing Documentation and accordingly re- determining the arm's length price of the impugned international transaction involving....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6.1 Impugned Order erred in questioning the need and benefit arrived by the Appellant from payment in respect of availing of services from its AE. 6.2 Impugned Order erred in making the impugned adjustment without appreciating that such services were indeed availed by Appellant for smooth and efficient functioning of its operations and are not duplicative. 6.3 Impugned Order erred in arbitrary selection of Other method as a Most appropriate method in the present case. NIL as ALP was mere Ipse dixit of TPO. 6.4 Impugned Order erred in assuming the ALP for the impugned transactions to be 'NIL', ignoring the intent of transfer pricing legislation, whereby profit margin charged by the associated enterprise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Order erred in arbitrary selection of Other method as a Most appropriate method in the present case. NIL as ALP was mere Ipse dixit of TPO. 7.4 The Impugned Order erred in making the impugned adjustment without presenting any analysis and by simplistically and callously mentioning the arm's length price as 'Nil' claiming application of Other method. Other grounds 8. Impugned Order erred in levying interest amounting to ~ 19,70,9601- under section 234A of the Act 9. Impugned Order has erred in levying consequential interest amounting to Rs. 2,06,95,0801- under section 234B of the Act 10. That the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act." 2.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... benchmark the same and the above said expenditures are part and parcel of the same expenditure. He submitted that the TPO cannot proceed to make fresh benchmarking on infrastructure services fees and reimbursement made to the AE. He prayed that this may be deleted. 4. Without prejudice to the above, ld. AR submitted that the assessee has compiled and now submits the additional evidences of those materials which were not submitted before the lower authorities and these additional evidences were compiled by obtaining certificate from auditors. The same may be considered if the Bench is not in agreement with the submissions made before in the earlier submissions, for not to do separate benchmarking for the infrastructure services fees and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting to basic market research and testing services are accepted by the TPO based on the financial statement for which the expenditures of infrastructure services fees and reimbursement made to the AE are also included, it does not mean that separate benchmarking and verification of the impact of TP adjustment need not be carried out by the TPO. This proposition of the ld. AR is hereby rejected and all the international transactions have to be evaluated based on the TP provisions. It is a fact on record that assessee has also carried out two international transactions i.e. infrastructure services fees and reimbursement made to the AE has to be benchmarked by verification of various documents whether the allocation of expenditures by the AE a....