Integra Software Services (P) Ltd v Dy CIT

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax PublishersIT Appeal No 736 (Chny) of 2017 2022 TaxPub(DT) 8578 (Chen-Trib) IN THE ITAT, CHENNAI 'D' BENCH MAHAVIR SINGH, V.P. & MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, A.M. Integra Software Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT IT Appeal No. 736 (Chny) of 2017 A.Y. 2012-13 21 October, 2022 Appellant by: N. Arjunraj, (CA) and S. Sridhar, (Advocate) learned AR Respondent by: R. Bhoopathi, JCIT and Kumar Ajeet, learned CIT-DR ORDER *Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.* Aforesaid appeal by assessee for assessment year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of final assessment Order, dated 15-2-2017 passed by learned assessing officer (AO) under section 143(3) read with section 144C(5) pursuant to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru (DRP) under section 144C(5) dated 30-12-2016. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer-2(1), Chennai (TPO) has determined Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transactions under section 92CA(3) vide Order, dated 27-1-2015. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under :-- 1. The order of The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry Circle, Pondicherry dated 15-2-2017 under section 143(3) read with section 144C(5) of the Act for the above assessment year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The DCIT erred in mechanically adopting the directions of the DRP vide Order, dated 30-12-2016 in computing the taxable total income for the assessment year under consideration without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The DCIT failed to appreciate that the directions of the DRP for maintaining the additions in the computation of taxable total income were wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. 4. The DCIT erred in adding back Rs. 25,11,973 representing interest at 7.75% on the AE sales receivables in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 5. The DCIT failed to appreciate that the upward adjustment of interest notionally charged in the determination of ALP relating to the transactions with AEs was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax PublishersIT Appeal No 736 (Chny) of 2017
2022 TaxPub(DT) 8578 (Chen-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, CHENNAI 'D' BENCH

MAHAVIR SINGH, V.P. & MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, A.M.

Integra Software Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

IT Appeal No. 736 (Chny) of 2017

A.Y. 2012-13

21 October, 2022

Appellant by: N. Arjunraj, (CA) and S. Sridhar, (Advocate) learned AR

Respondent by: R. Bhoopathi, JCIT and Kumar Ajeet, learned CIT-DR

ORDER

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for assessment year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of final assessment Order, dated 15-2-2017 passed by learned assessing officer (AO) under section 143(3) read with section 144C(5) pursuant to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru (DRP) under section 144C(5) dated 30-12-2016. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer-2(1), Chennai (TPO) has determined Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transactions under section 92CA(3) vide Order, dated 27-1-2015. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under :--

1. The order of The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry Circle, Pondicherry dated 15-2-2017 under section 143(3) read with section 144C(5) of the Act for the above assessment year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case.

2. The DCIT erred in mechanically adopting the directions of the DRP vide Order, dated 30-12-2016 in computing the taxable total income for the assessment year under consideration without assigning proper reasons and justification.

3. The DCIT failed to appreciate that the directions of the DRP for maintaining the additions in the computation of taxable total income were wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law.

4. The DCIT erred in adding back Rs. 25,11,973 representing interest at 7.75% on the AE sales receivables in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification.

5. The DCIT failed to appreciate that the upward adjustment of interest notionally charged in the determination of ALP relating to the transactions with AEs was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law.