News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
From the Courts »
 DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi Vs. Sahara Care Ltd, 1, Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow
 M/s. Mega Media Solutions Vs. Commissioner Trade & Taxes & Anr.
 Shri Subhash Rastogi, Raj Kumar & Associates,CAs L-7A(LGF), South Extn. Part -2, New Delhi. vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward -19(3), New Delhi.a
 Sneh Lata Sawhney, 6, Link Road, Jangpura extension, New Delhi. vs. DCIT, Central circle-7 New Delhi
 AT & T Global Network Services (India) Private Limited Mohan Dev House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110001 vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-1 New Delhi
 Mohd. Ismile H.No. 729, Sanjay Colony, Arthala, Ghaziabad, Uttar Prades. vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Ghaziabad.
 ACIT, Central Circle-22, New Delhi, Vs. M/sSatnam International P. Ltd., 201, Vipps Centre, 2, Community Complex, Masjid Moth, G.K. II, New Delhi
 American Express (I) P. Ltd., Metropolitan Saket, 7th floor, Office Block, District Centre, New Delhi. Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi.
 Satish Kumar Gautam 302, Triveni Complex, E-10/12, Jawahar Park, Luxmi Nagar, Delhi. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Noida.
 The Income Tax Officer Ward 1 (1) New Delhi Vs. AASl (India) Properties In Infrastructure Private Limited 4 A/10, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi
 M/s Rita Plastics Pvt. Ltd., A-53, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi-110027 Vs. Income Tax officer, Ward 15(4), New Delhi.

Tata Motors European Technical Centre Plc, 18, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400001. Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (IT)(2(2), Room No.116, 1st floor, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038
December, 24th 2014
                                                    .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

                     ,                  "        "  

        .    .  ,        ,                                

             (   / Assessment Years: 2008-09 and 2009-10)

 Tata Motors European           / Assistant Director of Income Tax
 Technical Centre Plc,              (IT)(2(2),
 C/o third floor,                   Room No.116, 1st floor,
 Nanavati Mahalaya,                 Scindia House,
 18, Homi Mody Street,              Ballard Pier,
 Hutatma Chowk,                      Mumbai-400038

   ./ ./PAN/GIR No. : AACCT7506K
 ( /Appellant) ..      (  / Respondent)

             / Assessee by :             S/Shri R R Vora, Nikhil Tiwari
                                         and Manoj Anchalia
                /Revenue        by :     Shri S D Srivastava

              / Date of Hearing
                                                : 29.9.2014
             /Date of Pronouncement : 22.12.2014

                              / O R D E R


        The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against

the    two   separate    impugned      final   assessment     orders      dated

25.12.2011 for the assessment year 2008-09 and 30.1.2014 for the

assessment year 2009-10, passed in pursuance of directions by the

Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Since issue involved in both the
                                                .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

these appeals are common, arising out of similar facts, therefore,

were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated

order, for the sake of convenience.

2.   To understand the implications of facts and issues involved, we

will take up the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09, vide which

following grounds of appeal have been taken:.

     "1. A)      The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) / Assessing
     Officer (AO) has erred in law and on facts in making addition of
     Rs.8,04,58.874/- by adopting Indian comparables as
     comparables for benchmarking international transactions of
     provisioning of services to Tata Motors Ltd. ("TML").
     B)    The TPO / AO ought to have accepted benchmarking
     carried out by the assessee and selection of UK companies as
     comparables for benchmarking the international transactions of
     the company considering the facts of the case of the appellant.
     C)    The TPO/ AO has erred in law and on facts in
     disregarding that in the previous assessment year, department
     has accepted and considered UK companies as comparables
     for the purpose of benchmarking of international transactions
     and hence the AO/ TPO should have followed the same as
     there is no change in the facts of the case.
     2.    Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above,:
     A)    The TPO/ AO has erred in law and on facts in cherry
     picking 7 Indian companies as comparables which are
     functionally not comparable with the appellant.
     B)   The TPO/ AO has erred in law and on facts in picking up
     companies with high margin instead of following detailed,
     systematic and methodical search process.
     C)    The learned TPO/ AO has erred in law and on facts in
     non granting Opportunity of cross examining the comparables
     selected by the TPO/ AO.
                                               .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

     3.    The learned TPO / AO has erred in law and on facts in
     not granting credit of TDS of Rs. 11,79,35,990/- out of total TDS
     credit of Rs.12.06.64,360.
     4.    The learned TPO / AO has erred in law and on facts in
     levying interest under section 23413 of the Act of Rs.
     The learned TPO / AO has erred in law and on facts in levying
     interest under section 234C of the Act of Rs.10,878/-"

3.   Brief facts qua the issue relating to Transfer Pricing Adjustment

of Rs.8,04,58,878/- are that, the assessee, Tata Motor European

Technical Centre PLC (TMETC) is incorporated in the United

Kingdom (UK) and is resident of       UK. The assessee is having

technical expertise of Automotive Industries of European Standards,

and is wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Motors Ltd (TML). The TML

entered into   design and engineering service agreement with the

assessee for providing design, engineering, testing and validation,

research and development of automobiles, including progrmme

management for the automotive and aerospace industries. For

rendering these services for the TML, the assessee                sent its

employees in India by deputing engineers and technical personnel at

TML's   factory/establishment in India. Thus, the assessee had             a

Service PE in India. The assessee, for rendering design and

engineering services for TML during the year,        had received an
                                                .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

amount of Rs.31,98,72,720/- and the operating profit for the year

was shown in the following manner :

   Total operating income                      Rs. 31,98,72,720

   Total operating cost                         Rs.29,27,04,244
   Operating profit                              Rs.2,71,68,476
   OP/TC%                                                9.28%

In the TP study report, for the purpose of benchmarking its

transaction and the margin, the main factors which were taken into

account were that, the design and engineering services for

automotive industries is highly Specialized services and considering

the nature of automotive industries in terms of       global standards,

competition and growing compliance requirements towards safety

and environmental norms, the parallels are not available in India.

The other factors for consideration were that, as against the operation

cost incurred by the PE, the major portion was towards the salary of

the employees who had special skills and knowledge and were paid

salary in UK only. The PE did not had any independent business in

India and it does not enter into any contract with outside party in

India.   Considering these factors and FAR analysis which was

effected by demographic and economic factors in UK, the assessee

searched for UK comparables rendering similar kind of services in

UK. Thus TMETC (i.e the assessee) was taken as tested party for
                                                .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

benchmarking the ALP. Based on FAR analysis and by adopting

TNMM as the most appropriate method and PLI as OP/TC, the

assessee selected four overseas comparables located in UK to

benchmark the Arm Length Price of the transactions with the AE i.e

TML, which were as under :

S.No. Name of the 2007                2006       2005%          3    year
      comparables %                   %                         weighted
1      Dytcna limited   4.17          6.74       4.86           5.26
2      Ricardo PLC      8.34          10.11      6.90           8.47
3      Online Design    6.98          5.85       5.47           6.22
4      Acteon group     21.87         19.63      10.60          18.31
       Average          10.34         10.59       6.96          9.57
       Assessee's                             9.28%
       profit margin

Since, for the year 2007 the average profit margin of the comparables

was arrived at 10.34%; therefore, the assessee's profit margin being

at 9.28%, was stated to be at Arm's Length range.

4.   The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) though accepted the TNMM

method and the PLI employed by the assessee for determining the

ALP of its international transactions, however, completely disagreed

with the selection of foreign comparables based in UK, as he held

that it is not tenable under the Indian Transfer Pricing Rules and
                                                .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

provisions. His other reasoning was that, that since the PE of the

assessee is located in India and carrying out its business within the

Indian territory, therefore, it should be treated as business entity in

India, akin to the other corporate entities doing business in India.

Further assessee's direct and indirect cost are incurred in and in

connection with business transactions in India and therefore, Indian

comparables should be selected for benchmarking the assessee's

margin. The TPO, hence selected 7 Indian comparables having

average mean margin of 36.77% which are as under :

S.No.   Company Name                                  OT /TC
1       Mahindra Consulting Engineers Ltd             28.96%
2       Alplangeo (India) Ltd.                        41.58%
3       Stup Consultants Pvt Ltd.                     36.72%
4       Semac Ltd                                     49.65%
5       Mitcon Consultancy Services Ltd.              41.21%
6       Kirloskar Consultants Ltd                     21.29%
7       Computronics Financial                        38.02%
        Average Mean                                  36.77%

In response to the show cause notice, the assessee gave detailed

submissions justifying the selection of foreign comparables, which

have been incorporated by the TPO at para 8 of his order.

Assessee' contention has been rejected by him in detail, as per the

discussions appearing at pages 5 to 9 of the order and accordingly,

he   benchmarked     the assessee's margin with the         mean       profit
                                               .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

margin of the 7 Indian comparables and made adjustment of

Rs.8,04,58,874/- in the following manner:

 Total Operating Income                           Rs.31,98,72,720/-
 Total operating cost                             Rs.29,27,04,244/-
 Operating profit                                  Rs.2,71,68,476/-
 Profit Margin of assessee                                  9.28%
 Arm' Length Profit Margin (36.77% of OC)         Rs.10,76,27,350/-
 Arm's Length value of transactions               Rs.40,03,31,594/-
 95% of Arm's Length Value                         Rs.38,03,15,014
 Difference being shortfall in OP being            Rs.8,04,58,874/-

5.   One of the main objection of the assessee before the DRP was

that, in the immediately preceding year i.e. in the assessment year

2007-08, on identical international transactions, the TPO has

accepted the UK comparables, selected from foreign data for bench

marking the international transactions of the assessee and therefore,

in this year also the TPO should have accepted the                 foreign

comparables. The DRP rejected the assessee's contentions and

other objections on the ground that the tested party is the Indian PE,

who is working in the Indian business environment and the mere fact

that the employees get paid in European or UK currency will not

decide the selection of foreign comparables. For the purpose of

Income tax, the PE has to be treated as distinct and separate

enterprise of the foreign company and therefore, the TPO has rightly

selected Indian companies as comparables. For other objections
                                                  .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

also, the DRP rejected the assessee's contention and upheld the

order of the TPO.

6.   Before us, ld. counsel Shri Rajan Vora, submitted that the

assessee being UK based company having its principal business in

UK from where it manages the services provided to TML motors

and all its employees are UK nationals having technical knowledge

of automotive industries and economic environment of European

Countries and therefore, based on the nature of business and

geographical factors, the comparability analysis can be done only

through selection of UK comparables engaged in the similar activities,

for the proper determination of           ALP. The TMETC-PE is not

influenced by the Indian economic/financial environment and there

are no Indian employees. All the costs considered for attribution of

PLI are incurred by TMETC in            UK only. Even under the Indian

Transfer Pricing Regulations, comparability analysis based on FAR

is the most crucial part for bench marking the Arm's Length Price,

which is mainly based on selection of comparables having similar

kind of business, functions and environment. In support of his

proposition, for the selection of foreign comparables he relied upon

the following Tribunal decisions:

a)   Global Vantedge Pvt Ltd (2010) TIOL-24-ITAT-Del) and
                                              .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

b)   Ranbaxy India Ltd (299 ITR (AT) 175 (Del)

He further submitted that OECD guidelines, and          UN      Practical

Manual on Transfer Pricing for the      developing countries         have

recognized that foreign comparables can be taken into consideration,

if the tested party has been chosen as the foreign company. The

aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal have taken into cognizance such

OECD guidelines and UN manual. Thus, he submitted that selection

of foreign comparables for the purposes of comparability analysis and

bench marking the Arm's Length Price should be taken into

consideration. Without prejudice to the above, he also made detailed

submissions with regard to the 7 comparables chosen by          TPO, to

demonstrate that there are no actual comparables having similar

profile and functions with that of the assessee and therefore, no

company in India     can be considered as comparable with the

assessee. He also filed written synopsis, with regard to             each

comparables, to show, how they are functionally not comparable

with the assessee.

7.   On the other hand, the ld. CIT DR strongly relied upon the order

of TPO and the direction given by DRP and submitted that, if the

PE of the assessee has been considered as Indian entity, functioning

in India and all its services are being rendered in India, then its
                                               .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

margin for the Indian transaction have to be bench marked with the

Indian comparables. Thus, the TPO has rightly adopted Indian

comparables for bench marking the ALP of the assessee for its

services rendered to Tata Motors.

8.   We have heard the rival submissions, perused the relevant

findings of the TPO as well as directions of DRP and also material

placed on record. The assessee, TMETC         is UK based company

which is wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Motors Ltd, India. Its

business activities primarily involved providing of automobile design

and engineering services to the TML and          for rendering these

services the TMETC-UK sends its employees/engineers to India. It

is in this background, the TMETC has been considered as having a

service PE in India and therefore, its profit from Indian operation is

taxable in India. For the purposes of TP analysis, the assessee has

selected TMETC as the tested party, since all its operating cost are

incurred in UK, having employees based in UK, therefore, it has

selected comparable companies from UK having            similar kind of

functions and rendering similar services. It has selected four UK

based comparables having average arithmetic mean of 10.3% for the

year 2007, and therefore, it was stated that its margin of 9.8%

(OP/TC) is at arm's length range.
                                                  .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

9.     The sole issue before us is, whether the assessee was justified

in carrying out comparative analysis on the basis of UK based

comparables, rather than by selecting        Indian comparables.          The

TPO's main objection is that, since the Indian PE is performing its

function in India and rendering services to Indian company, therefore,

margins for the Indian operation has to be bench marked with the

Indian comparables. Indian Transfer Pricing Regulations specifically

Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 does not specify that the

comparability analysis of international transactions has to be strictly

with the Indian companies but, it only lays down that comparability

with uncontrolled transactions has to be chosen with reference to :

(2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the comparability of an
international transaction with an uncontrolled transaction shall be
judged with reference to the following, namely:--
     (a) the specific characteristics of the property transferred or
         services provided in either transaction;
     (b) the functions performed, taking into account assets employed
         or to be employed and the risks assumed, by the respective
         parties to the transactions;
     (c) the contractual terms (whether or not such terms are formal or
         in writing) of the transactions which lay down explicitly or
         implicitly how the responsibilities, risks and benefits are to be
         divided between the respective parties to the transactions;
     (d) conditions prevailing in the markets in which the respective
         parties to the transactions operate, including the geographical
         location and size of the markets, the laws and Government
         orders in force, costs of labour and capital in the markets,
         overall economic development and level of competition and
         whether the markets are wholesale or retail."
                                                  .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

Thus, the Indian Transfer Pricing Regulations while selecting

comparable companies lays emphasis on FAR analysis, and

conditions prevailing in the markets in which the parties operate for

carrying out the comparability analysis. If such comparability analysis

could not be done properly with the Indian comparables looking to

the characteristics and nature of the functions performed and

services rendered then, it has to be seen from the angle who                 is

selected as "tested party" and based on that, comparables are to be

chosen from the economic factors and the functions performed in

the conditions prevalent of the tested party. If the tested party itself is

foreign based and the services rendered by it is very specific, for

which the Indian comparables are not available         or functionally not

comparable then, it cannot be held that foreign comparables cannot

be selected for benchmarking the Arm's Length Price or               margin.

Indian Transfer Pricing     Regulation does not puts any fetters on

selection of foreign comparables, if conditions are as such, that the

Indian comparables do not stand the test of comparability with the

tested party. Answer to this has been given in the OECD Transfer

Pricing Guidelines which provides that non-domestic comparables

should not be automatically rejected and it has to be seen on case

by case basis by the reference to the extent to which           they satisfy
                                               .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

the   comparability factors. The relevant paragraph of the OECD

guidelines reads as under :

      "A.4.3.2 Foreign source or non domestic comparables
      3.5 Taxpayers do not always perform searches for
      comparables on a country-by-country basis, e.g. in
      cases where there are insufficient data available at the
      domestic level and/or in order to reduce compliance
      costs where several entities of an MNE group have
      comparable       functional     analyses.    Non-domestic
      comparables should not be automatically rejected just
      because they are not domestic. A determination of
      whether non- domestic comparables are reliable has to
      be made on a case-by-case basis and by reference to
      the extent to which they satisfy the five comparability
      factors. Whether or not one regional search for
      comparables can be reliably used for several subsidiaries
      of an MNE group operating in a given region of the world
      depends on the particular circumstances in which each of
      those subsidiaries operates. See paragraphs 1.57-1.58 on
      market differences and multi-country analyses. Difficulties
      may also arise from differing accounting standards"

10.   If the tested party has been selected consistent with the

functional analysis of the controlled transaction and is a least

complex party to the controlled transaction, then even if it is a

foreign party, the same should be taken as the basis for carrying out

comparability analysis with the uncontrolled transaction by taking

into account the business environment      in the country where the

tested party is being bench marked. Internationally, it has been

recognized that choice of the tested party should be such having

least complexity and should be the party in respect of which most
                                                .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

reliable data for comparability is available. The UN Manual on

Transfer Pricing, in Chapter 5 envisages the selection of tested

party in the following manner :

     "5 . 3. 3.   Selection of the Tested Party When applying the Cost Plus Method, Resale Price
     Method or Transactional Net Margin Method (see further
     Chapter 6) it is necessary to choose the party to the
     transaction for which a financial indicator (mark-up on costs,
     gross margin, or net profit indicator) is tested. The choice of the
     tested party should be consistent with the functional analysis
     of the controlled transaction. Attributes of controlled
     transaction(s) will influence the selection of the tested party
     (where needed). The tested party normally should be the less
     complex party to the controlled transaction and should be the
     party in respect of which the most reliable data for
     comparability is available. It may be the local or the foreign
     party. If a taxpayer wishes to select the foreign associated
     enterprise as the tested party, it must ensure that the neces-
     sary relevant information about it and sufficient data on
     comparables is furnished to the tax administration and vice
     versa in order for the latter to be able to verify the selection
     and application of the transfer pricing method."

     It is very pertinent to note here that in Chapter 10, of the UN

Manual, in Para, Indian Transfer Pricing Regulation have

accepted the foreign comparables in cases where the foreign AE is

the least complex entity and requisite information about the tested

party and comparables re available. The relevant paragraph reads

as under :-

     " The regulations prescribe mandatory annual filing
     requirement as well as maintenance of contemporaneous
                                                   .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

      documentation by the tax payer in case international
      transactions between associated enterprises cross a threshold
      and contain stringent penalty implication in case of non-
      compliance. The preliminary onus of proving the arm's length
      price of the transaction lies with the taxpayer, The Indian
      transfer pricing administration prefers Indian comparables in
      most cases and also accepts foreign comparables in cases
      where the foreign associated enterprises is the less or least
      complex entity and requisite information is available about the
      tested party and comparables."

      Thus, the Indian Transfer Pricing does not reject the concept of

foreign comparables, if the tested party is foreign AE. The blanket

assumption by the TPO and DRP that foreign comparables cannot

be accepted at all, is not correct. Similarly, US TP Regulations for the

purpose of Bench marking under comparable method has laid down

the following criterion for selection of tested party:

      "(2) Tested party ­(i) In general. For purposes of this section,
      the tested party will be the participant in the controlled
      transaction whose operating profit attributable to the controlled
      transactions can be verified using the most reliable data and
      requiring the fewest and most reliable adjustments, and for
      which reliable data regarding uncontrolled comparables can be
      located. Consequently, in most cases the tested party will be
      the least complex of the controlled taxpayers and will not own
      valuable intangible property or unique assets that distinguish it
      from potential uncontrolled comparables."

      Further Para § 1.482-1 (C) viz, relevant factors for
      comparability of uncontrolled companies is reproduced as

      (ii) Different geographic markets--('A) In general uncontrolled
      corn parables ordinarily should be derived from the geographic
      market in which the controlled taxpayer operates, because
                                                .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

      there may be significant differences in economic conditions in
      different markets. If information from the same market is not
      available, an uncontrolled comparable, derived from a different
      geographic market may be considered if adjustments are made
      to account for differences between the two markets. If
      information permitting adjustments for such differences is not
      available, then information derived from uncontrolled
      comparables in the most similar market for which reliable data
      is available may be used, but the extent of such differences
      may affect the reliability of the method for purposes of the best
      method rule. For this purpose, a geographic market is any
      geographic area in which the economic conditions for the
      relevant product or service are substantially the same, and
      may include multiple countries, depending on the economic

11.   Here in this case, there can no dispute with regard to the fact

that the tested party is   TMETC, whose operating profit is to be

bench marked by carrying out functional analysis of its controlled

transactions for which reliable data for its comparability is available

in the country where it is located, then such comparables has to be

taken into account for carrying out the comparability analysis for the

purpose of Transfer Pricing and bench marking the Arm's Length

Price. The TMETC for the purpose of rendering services in India is

incurring all its cost in UK like direct costs, employee costs, legal

and professional fees, rent and other operating expenses, then for

the purpose of computation of PLI, these costs have to be taken into

consideration for determining the profit margin. Since all the main

costs attributable to the PE are based on cost incurred in UK, then

it can be very well said that PE is influenced by the economic and
                                                .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

financial conditions of UK, as against the Indian economic factors.

The Indian economic factors      are not at all influencing the cost or

margin of the assessee, hence it cannot be held that Indian

comparables can be used to bench mark the TMETC transaction and

the price with Tata Motors. For this reason, the finding of the TPO as

well as DRP that PE is an Indian enterprise, working in India and

therefore, its margin is to be bench marked with Indian comparables

is not accepted. The PE in India is a service PE, having no

establishment in India, nor incurring any costs, deployed any assets,

therefore, cannot be held that it is an independent Indian enterprise.

Nothing has been brought on record that assessee's PLI is

influenced by the economic factors in India, viz, attribution of costs,

assets or other factors relevant for determination of profits are based

in India. Thus, in our opinion, the Transfer Pricing Officer and DRP

were not correct in holding that UK comparables cannot be taken

into consideration for the purposes of     comparative analysis and

bench marking the assessee's margin. Accordingly, we hold that

under the facts and circumstances of the case, the foreign

comparables i.e. UK comparables can be taken into account for

carrying out FAR analysis and      bench marking the Arm's Length

margin of the assessee's transactions with its AE and the selection

of the Indian comparables by the TPO is not accepted.           Since the
                                               .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

TPO has not carried out any comparability analysis or FAR analysis

in respect of UK comparables chosen by the assessee, therefore,

he is directed    to carry out such analysis and benchmark the

assessee's margin. If such comparables do not stand the test of

comparability then, TPO may search other comparable after

confronting    to the assessee.   In that case, for the      search      of

comparability assessee will provide necessary assistance to the

TPO. With this direction, the matter of transfer pricing adjustment is

restored back to the file of the TPO/AO. The Ground No.1 as raised

by the assessee is thus treated as partly allowed for statistical


12.   In view of the decision as given in ground No.1, ground No.2

has become purely academic and therefore no adjudication is


13.   Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is not pressed, therefore,

same is dismissed as not pressed.

14.   In    Ground No.4, the assessee has challenged the levy of

interest u/s 234B of the Act of Rs.1,77,76,885/-

15.   In this regard, the ld. AR submitted that this issue is squarely
                                              .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble

Bombay High Court in the case of Director Of Income-tax

(International Taxation). Vs. NGC Network Asia(2009) 313 ITR

187(Bom). Accordingly, we direct the AO to follow the decision of

jurisdictional High Court (supra), if the ratio is applicable on the

facts of the case.

16.   In   Ground No.5, the assessee has challenged the levy of

interest u/s 234C of the Act of Rs.10.878/-

17.   Before us, the ld. counsel submitted that no interest u/s 234C

should levied as the same is leviable on the returned income.

Accordingly, we direct the AO to charge interest u/s 234C on the

returned income.

18.   Thus, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

for statistical purposes.

19.   The assessee has also raised the following as additional


      "6. Without prejudice to the all other grounds, the Hon'ble
      DRP should have directed fresh comparability analysis to select
      Indian comparables which are functionally comparable to
      appellant, as comparables chosen by the               AO/TPO to
      benchmark the transition are functionally different;.
      7.  Without prejudice to the all other grounds , the ld.
      TPO/AO has erred in not considering the correct operating
                                                 .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

      margin of the appellant i.e. 27.61% (i.e. OP/OC), while
      computing the arms-length price of appellants international
      transactions and instead of considering 9.28% as operating
      margin of the appellant"

20.   In the assessment year 2009-10 also the assessee has raised

exactly similar ground. However, In view of the decision given in

respect of ground No.1, the additional grounds have become purely

academic and the same is dismissed as infructuous.

ITA No.1698/Mum/2014 (AY-2009-10)

22.   The sole issue raised in this appeal by the appellant is that the

AO has erred in making addition         on account of transfer pricing

adjustment of Rs.5,38,24,761/- by selecting the Indian companies as

comparables, instead     of foreign companies for benchmarking the

international transaction of provision of services, with the AE .

23.   Since the issue raised is similar to ground raised in the appeal

of assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 vide ground No.1, on

similar set of facts, therefore, finding given therein will apply mutatis

mutandis to this ground also in this year. Therefore, ground raised by

the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
                                                .T.A.No.7630 and 1698/Mum/2012

24.   In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

statistical purposes.
      Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd Dec,2014
                          22                      Dec, 2014   

       sd/-                                  sd/-
(.  .  /N.K.BILLAIYA)                    (    /AMIT SHUKLA)
   / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                      / JUDICIAL MEMBER

 Mumbai : on this 22nd      Dec, 2014

. ../ SRL , Sr. PS
        /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Appellant
2.      / The Respondent.
3.      () / The CIT(A)-
4.       / CIT
5.        ,     ,  / DR,
      ITAT, Mumbai
6.      / Guard file.
                                                   / BY ORDER,

true copy

                                           (Asstt. Registrar)
                                    ,  /ITAT, Mumbai
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Work Flow Workflow Software Software Automation Workflow automation Software Design Workflow Design Business Work Flow Workflow automation tools

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions