TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 1100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Dehradun dated 22.09.2016 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the comparables selected by the TPO without appreciating the facts and functional comparability of assessee company with that of the comparables selected by the TPO in this case. 2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in law and on facts in carrying out arbitrary analysis while rejecting the TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method applied by the TPO and accepting CUP as MAM in case of Mud Engineering Services received by the assessee without verifying and analysis of the facts of the case. 3. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in law and on facts by al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, after giving the opportunity of hearing to the assessee, the learned transfer pricing officer selected five comparables whose margin was 23.90% and proposed an adjustment of Rs. 207,761,971 to the international transaction of the subcontracting services. The order u/s 92CA (3) of the act was passed on 30/1/2016. Consequently, draft assessment order was passed on 10th of March 2016 wherein the above adjustment was incorporated and total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 507,025,103 against the net taxable income as per return of income of Rs. 241,366,520/-. The learned assessing officer further held that service tax liability of Rs. 51,868,804/- is also disallowable u/s 43B of the act. 5. Assessee preferred an objection befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ermination of the ALP of the international transaction of the receipt of the sub contract services the assessee has applied CUP method as the most appropriate method whereas the learned transfer pricing officer adopted transactional net margin method as the most appropriate method. The learned dispute resolution panel following its direction in the earlier year held that the applicability of CUP by the assessee is a good method in the circumstances. The learned DRP also relied upon the factual metrics of the earlier year compared to this year and stated that there is no difference between them. The learned departmental representative could not show us that what are the differences in the factual metrics for the year for which the learned di....