TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ispute Resolution Panel (DRP). In facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/ Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Ld. DRP have: 1. erred in making transfer pricing adjustment of INR 166,00,63, 165 to total income declared by Appellant. Transfer Pricing Grounds: Legal grounds Ground 1: That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passes by the Ld. AO is barred by limitation in terms of section 153(1)/ (4) and therefore, is liable to be quashed. Ground 2: Based on the facts and circumstances of the present case and in law, the Final Order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO) being passed not in conformity with the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble DRP'), is bad in law as per provisions of section 144C(10) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and hence liable to be quashed. Common grounds for all segments Ground 3: The Ld. TPO/AO have erred, in law and in facts, by rejecting/modifying the economic analysis undertaken by the Assessee. Trading Segment Ground 4: The Ld. TPO/AO have erred, in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cting the comparable companies identified by the Assessee as comparable in the TP documentation for payment of royalty Ground 15. The Ld. TPO/AO have erred, in law and in facts, by adding certain companies to the final set of comparables on an ad-hoc basis without due consideration to the functional, assets and risk profile of the Assessee in payment of royalty Manufacturing Activities. Ground 16: The Ld. TPO/AO have erred, in law and in facts, by rejecting the comparable companies identified by the Assessee as comparable in the TP documentation for benchmarking manufacturing activities without giving any reason. Ground 17: The Ld. TPO/AO have erred, in law and in facts, by adding certain companies to the final set of comparables on an ad-hoc basis without due consideration to the functional, assets and risk profile of the Assessee in benchmarking contract manufacturing activities. Ground 18: The Assessee would like to propose certain companies as comparables considering the functional, assets and risk profile of the Assessee in the manufacturing segment. Others Ground 19: The Hon'ble DRP has erred, in law and in fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under: "5. Income computation table in the draft order: The additions suggested by the TPO totaling to Rs. 166,00,63,165/- as stated above is added to the total income for the AY 21-22. The assessment was proposed to be completed as under: Description Amount (Rs) Total income as per return of income and as per section 143(1) of the IT Act 147,97,31,970 Add: Addition (Adjustments) proposed by TPO 166,00,63,165 Assessed total Income u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C 313,97,95,135 6.1 The above quantified income was sent to the assessee as Draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the IT Act, 1961 vide DIN & order No ITBA/AST/F/ 144C/2023-24/1059061224(1) dated 26/12/23. 6.2 The assessee filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel in Form 35A and the Dispute Resolution Panel vide order dated 26/9/24 in DIN No ITBA/DRP/M/ 144C(5)/2024-25/1069123639(1) has given directions u/s 144C(5) of the IT Act, 19. 6.3 The order giving effect to the directions of the Hon'ble DRP has not been passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer, DCIT, 1(2)(2), New Delhi till now and hence the final order in the case is being finalized without g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment Centre Delhi & ANR. dated 06.08.2021 - WP(C) 7936/Del/2021 2. Fiberhome India Vs National E Assessment Centre ANR 15.12.2021 - WP(C) 11609/2021 3. SFR Ltd. Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & ANR - WP(C) 6484/2021 4. M/s Ford India Pvt. Ltd. Vs National E Assessment Centre & ANR - WP(C) 12701/2021 5. Hitachi Astemo Haryana Put. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Circle 22(2), Delhi -ITA No. 1005/Del/2022 In order of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Hitachi Astemo Haryana Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Circle 22(2), Delhi -ITA No. 1005/Del/2022 it is squarely covered this issue in which it has been mentioned that the facts of this case are very similar to the facts of the Hitachi Astemo Haryana Pvt. Ltd. case (supra). Relevant portions of the Hitachi order are reproduced as under: "AO in his final assessment order commented that DRP's directions to the TPO/has to be given effect by the TPO and the same was communicated to the TPO requesting to pass order giving effect of DRP's order dated 23.02.2022. Though the order giving effect of DRP's direction passed by the TPO is also dated 30.03.2022, the same was not received by the AO. AO could not incorpor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh the entire proceedings and only the final assessment order along with the demand notice were set aside and proceedings restored to the level of DRP/ AO. He reiterated that even though the assessment orders have been passed without incorporating the DRP's directions and in complete violation of mandatory procedure u/s 144C of the Act, but still the Hon'ble High Court did not treat it as fatal error which cannot be corrected. Ld. DR for the Revenue further pleaded that from the orders of Hon'ble High Court, it can be inferred that the Hon'ble High Court treated it as technical/procedural default and to cure the same, restored the proceedings at the level of DRP and given Department, the opportunity to pass a fresh assessment order after incorporating the DRP's directions. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We have given very thoughtful consideration to the above submissions and case laws. We find that the Id. Counsel of the assessee relied upon the Tribunal decisions and one decision from Hon'ble Karnataka High Court (supra). On the other hand, Id. DR for the Revenue has relied upon three case laws from Hon'ble jurisdict....