TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1335
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....total income of INR 201,40,43,870/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and the AO assessed the income of the assessee at INR 2,20,13,31,467/- u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 27.06.2024 by making various additions. Against the said order, the assessee filed objections before the ld. DRP and was aggrieved by the order of ld. DRP, present appeal is filed before the Tribunal. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. "That on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed by AO is wrong and bad in law Transfer Pricing ('TP') Grounds 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by INR 14,56,72,227/- by holding that the Appellant's international transactions pertaining to provision of Research Support Services Segment do not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Act and in doing so have grossly erred in 2.1. not appreciating that none of the conditions set out in section 92C(3) of Act are satisfied in the instant case before proceeding to determi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g margins of the comparable while determining the arm's length price of the impugned transaction and proposing an adjustment by using incorrect operating profit margin of the comparable. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO has erred in proposing the transfer pricing adjustment without considering comparables on the basis of proper Functions, Assets and Risk (FAR) analysis. In doing so, the Ld. AO/TPO erred in: 3.1. Including SPT Investment Advisory Services Private Limited (SPT) as the only comparable in the final set, which fails the Turnover filter applied by the Ld. TPO, 3.2. proposing an adjustment without performing a valid comparability exercise in contravention to Section 92 of the Act, thus, making the assessment annulled in the eyes of law. Corporate Tax Grounds 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by INR 2,21,19,425 on account of deposit of employee's contribution of Provident Fund (PF) after the due date for deposit under the PF Act. In doing so, the Ld. AO: 4.1. Erred in not following the favourable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or at the time of hearing of the appeal. The Appellant prays that appropriate relief be granted based on the said grounds of appeal and the facts and circumstances of the case." 4. Before us, Ld.AR has not pressed Ground of appeal Nos.1 & 5 thus, same are dismissed. 5. Ground of appeal Nos. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are with respect to the transfer pricing adjustment made of INR 1,45,67,277/- on international transactions related to research support segment. 6. Ld.AR for the assessee submits that Ld. DRP vide its para No. 4.2.12.1, has directed the AO/TPO to re-verify the computation of income on the basis of the financials of the companies selected in the final set of comparables as available in public domain and rectify the errors. The TPO while selecting the comparables has taken filter i.e. "turnover of more than INR 5 crores and less than INR 100 crores" as one of the filters however, while disposing the objections raised by the assessee for introducing fresh comparables, the assessee objected some comparables as they have not pass the test of this filter and the TPO also observed that based on a factor of approximately INR 4 to 5 crores of the average tu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disallowance by making following observations:- 6. "On careful consideration of above, first of all, we note that the assessee for making payment for the month of September 2019 generated challan on 09.10.2019 and make payment which was debited to his bank account on 10.10.2019 as per statement given by the bank. However, the same was reversed on 15.10.2019 due to technical glitches on the EPFO portal/EPFO's SBI Account and the amount was again reversed/credited to the bank account of assessee. Finally the payment was transmitted to the bank account of EPFO on 16.10.2019 and realization was shown on 17.10.2019. As per Assessing Officer the payment was made beyond two days of specified date of 15.10.2019 and he made disallowance and the Id. CIT(A) also uphold the same. 7. In our humble understanding when the payment has been debited in the bank account of assessee and flouted further out of coffer of the assessee on 10.10.2019 then the assessee cannot be held responsible attracting the disallowance. Although the amount was again reversed and credited to the bank account of assessee on 15.10.2017 and finally transferred to the EPFO SBI account on 16.10.2019 then....