TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1858
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order of ld. CIT(A)-XX, New Delhi dated 25.02.2013 for Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The grounds raised by the revenue in IT(TP)A No. 609/Bang/2013 are as under. "1. The order of the Learned CIT (Appeals), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, is opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that M/s Mold Tek, cannot be taken as comparable, being functionally different without appreciating that it satisfies all the qualitative and quantitative filters applied by the TPO. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that M/s Maple Esolutions Ltd. and Triton Corp. Ltd., cannot be taken as comparables, without appreciating that the company qualifie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns performed, assets used and risk undertaken i.e., qualitative and quantitative analysis. 10. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored." 3. The grounds raised by the assessee in IT(TP)A No. 2486/Del/2013 are as under. "The grounds stated therein are without prejudice to each other: Rejection of appellant's economic analysis 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned TPO and AO have erred in. and the Learned CIT(A) has further erred in upholding/confirming the rejection of transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the Appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../ price using only FY 2006-07 data which was not available to the Appellant at, the time of complying with the transfer pricing documentation requirements 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned TPO and AO have erred in. and the Learned CIT(A) has further erred in upholding/confirming the action of TPO in considering certain items of income/expenditure as non-operating while computing the operating margin of the comparable companies. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned TPO and AO have erred in, and the Learned CIT(A) has further erred in not allowing suitable adjustments to account for the functional differences and / or capacity utilization and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nner as per para no. 17 of his order available on page no. 43 of his order. When the bench wanted to see the submission made before ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the relevant portion is available on page no. 51 of the paper book. It is also submitted by ld. AR of assessee before us that on pages 1 to 9 of the paper book is an affidavit under Rule 10 of ITAT Rules, 1963 and submitted that this affidavit is very relevant regarding assessee's claim for idle capacity adjustment and hence, the entire matter should be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision after considering all aspects of the matter. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of AO/TPO. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we reprod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was equipped for meeting the projected project requirements. As a result, some of the employees of the Appellant could not be fruitfully deployed. 5. That during the year under appeal, the Appellant had an average bench strength of 120 employees, with the actual figures fluctuating in the range of 158 in April 2006 to 80 in March 2007 (refer to column (B) of Table A). 6. Table A Month on month head count employed by the Appellant No. of employees actually worked on International projects No. of employees actually worked on Domestic projects (A) (B) (C) (D) April 158 41 9 May 157 37 9 June 137 38 9 July 143 31 9 August 127 40 8 Septembe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereinbelow from page no. 43 of the order of ld. CIT(A). This para reads as under. "17. I have considered the submission of the appellant. Bench cost and idle capacity adjustment depends on the availability of similar data for the comparables also. Since, they are absent, I hold that TPO was correct in not venturing into such adjustments. Therefore, I hold that TPO was correct in taking the data for the appellant from its audited accounts for both the years." 7. From the above para reproduced from the order of ld. CIT(A), it is seen that the finding of ld. CIT(A) on this aspect is very cryptic without dealing with any other arguments which were raised before him and moreover, before the Tribunal, the assessee brought on record on....