TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 2163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... comparable companies. 4. The Ld. AO/TPO erred in computing TP adjustment (and Ld. DRP erred in confirming) arriving at the profit of the assessee by reducing the income by way of gain due to fluctuation of foreign exchange. 5. The Ld. AO/TPO be directed to compute the corrected PLI on basis of financials of comparable companies. 6. The appellant pleads that your honour consider's the pricing policy adopted by the group of appellant vis-à-vis third party (discount rate compared to Group's global price list) for determination of arm's length price for the transaction of purchase. 7. The Ld. AO/TPO erred in (and Ld. DRP erred in confirming) non acceptance in change of characterization. 7.1 While rejecting the change in characterization AO/TPO/DRP gave certain reasoning which are incorrect or logically not relevant for decide the issue. 8. The Ld. AO/TPO erred in (and Ld. DRP erred in confirming) non adoption of alternate method, though discussed by the TPO, which would have resulted in a reduced TP adjustment of Rs. 3,04,00,000/-. 9. The Ld. TPO has erred in (and Ld. DRP in upholding making TP adjustments on total ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the aforementioned TP adjustment amounting to Rs.6.94 crores. It is the submission of Ld. AR for the assessee that the said ground is general in nature and the same can be dismissed. Further, referring to Concise Ground No.4 and 7, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the same are not pressed. Accordingly, we order and said Ground Nos. 1, 4 and 7 are dismissed. 7. Referring to concise Ground Nos. 9 and 10, Ld. AR submitted that the said grounds are relevant at the time of actual calculations. From that point of view, the same constitutes consequential in nature. 8. After hearing both the sides, we find Ground No.9 relates to the method of calculation of adjustments qua the international transactions only and not linked to the total turnover of the assessee. Further, the concise Ground No.10 relates to the margin of +/- 5% which is obviously to be decided based on the settled law on this issue. Accordingly, these ground Nos. 9 and 10 are dismissed as consequential. 9. To sum up, the Grounds at Sl.No. 1, 4, 7, 9 and 10 stand dismissed. That leaves the Ground Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 for adjudication. The ground-wise adjudication is given in the paragraphs below of this order.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar issues were remanded by the Tribunal for A.Y. 2009-10. For the sake of completeness of this order, the said para No.44 is extracted here as under : "44. In view of the direction of the DRP for A.Y. 2011-12 on various issues and the order of the TPO for A.Y. 2009-10 we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires a re-visit to the file of the TPO for adjudication of the entire issue afresh. We accordingly set aside the matter to the file of the TPO for determination of the ALP keeping in mind the directions for capacity utilisation adjustment and the various other adjustments which were allowed to the assessee in subsequent assessment years but were not considered by the DRP/TPO/AO for the impugned assessment year. The AO shall decide the issue as per law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes." 13. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that with similar directions, the said concise Ground No.2 relating to all aspects of the economic adjustments is remanded to the file of AO for fresh adjudication and for want of a deci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 17. Concise Ground No.5 relates to the allowing correction in the margins of comparables. In this regard, Ld. AR for the assessee brought our attention to the order of DRP and submitted that the request of the assessee was not actually commented upon by the DRP on the issues relating to the required correction to the margins of the comparable companies. The fact that assessee filed rectification application before the DRP under Rule 13 and the absence of a decision in this regard was also brought to our notice. Further, he submitted that similar corrections were allowed by the DRP in connection with the comparables for the A.Y. 2011-12. Therefore, it is the prayer of Ld. AR for the assessee before us for want of a direction from the Tribunal to the DRP/TPO/AO for taking up appropriate measures after due process of verification of the figures. 18. On hearing both the parties on this issue, we find that the DRP/TPO/AO should be directed to incorporate the requisite correction in the figures after due process of verification and after granting reasonable opportunity to the assessee on this issue. Accordingly, concise Ground No.5 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical ....