TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 992
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....International transaction(s) in respect of intangible property (TP Risk Parameter) 3. Large difference in the opening stock of current year (in Trading & Manufacturing account) and closing stock of previous year (in Trading & Manufacturing account as per Return of Income) 4. High risk International Transactions (Entity reported in CbCR data) (TP Risk Parameter) 5. Taxable receipts from Other Sources shown in Schedule TDS2 is higher than the receipts shown in ITR 6. Reduction in profit because of application of Income Computation & Disclosure Standards. 2.1 Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 29.06.2021. Notice u/s 142(1) dated 31.01.2022, 21.07.2023, 17.08.2023 and 29.08.2023 were issued. The assessee filed submissions electronically and submitted documents. A reference u/s 92CA (1) of the Act was made to Transfer Pricing Officer ('T.P.O.') for determination of arm's length price in respect of the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its associated enterprises as reported in Form 3CEB filed by the assessee. The TPO vide order dated 30.07.2023 u/s 92CA(3) of the Act made total adjustment in respect of international transa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the TPO has erred in not discharging the statutory onus of establishing that the conditior.s specified in clauses (a) to (d) of section 92C(3) of Act are satisfied in Appellant's case, before disregarding the arm's length price determined by the Appellant. The AO/DRP further erred in upholding the action of the TPO. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO has erred in re-determining the arm's length price ("ALP") of the international transactions of the Appellant by arbitrarily rejecting the segmental accounts maintained by the Appellant and adopting an entity level approach. 9 Transfer Pricing ("TP") adjustment amounting to INR 2,22,68,088 in respect of the international transactions pertaining to provision of business support services: 9.1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/ TPO have erred in making the transfer pricing adjustment of INR 2,22,68,088 to the international transactions pertaining to provision of business support services to its Associated Enterprises ("AEs"), alleging the same to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the DRP, and incorrectly considering the adjustment of INR 2,22,68,088 in respect of international transaction pertaining to provision of business support services, 10. TP adjustment amounting to INR 1.29.20.006 in respect of the International transactions pertaining to provision of contract research & development services: 10.1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO have erred in making the transfer pricing adjustment of INR 1.29.28.886 to the International transactions pertaining to provision of contract research & development services to its AEs, alleging the same to be not at 10.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO have erred in making an adjustment for the international transactions pertaining to provision of contract research & development services and in doing so have grossly erred in rejecting the ALP as determined by the Appellant in the transfer pricing documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Act and Rule 100 of the Rules. 10.3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO erred in modifying. based o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has received beneficial technical-know how from the AEs. 11.4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO erred in challenging the commercial wisdom of the Appellant in making such payments for necessary business existence. 11.5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/ DRP/ TPO have erred in benchmarking the international transaction of payment of royalty with royalty agreements which are functionally different/ incomparable. 11.6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO have erred in excluding certain comparable royalty agreements considered by the Appellant in the TP documentation on arbitrary/frivolous grounds. 11.7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO have erred in making TP adjustment in respect of the intamational transaction pertaining to payment of royalty, despite the fact that such payment was made by Appellant in the earlier years also and the same was duly accepted by AO/TPO in those earlier years. 11.8. Without prejudice to the above, the AO/DRP/TPO have erred in not appreciating that if appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f management services and technical support services, despite the fact that such services were availed by Appellant in the earlier years also and the same was duly accepted by AO/TPO in those earlier years. 12.7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO erred in making the TP adjustment in respect of the international transaction pertaining to payment of intra group services, alleging that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate the receipt of services, necessity for availing such services and the benefits realized thereof, thereby challenging the commercial wisdom of the Appellant in making such payments while passing the order in contrast with the judicial pronouncements in this regard. 12.8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/ DRP/TPO have erred in alleging that the services received by the Appellant from its AE's falls within the premise of shareholder functions or stewardship services and do not require a separate payment. 12.9. Without prejudice to the other grounds, that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/TPO/ DRP have erred in not appreciating that the....