×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
06-09-2019, Wipro GE Healthcare, Section 144C, 92CA, Tribunal Bangalore
Present appeal has been filed by assessee against final assessment order dated 22/10/18 passed by Ld.JCIT under section 143(3) read with section144C of the Act, for assessment year 2014-15 on following grounds of appeal:
1. That the order of the Assessing Officer (AO), Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the order of the transfer pricing officer in so far as it is against the appellant is against the law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, equity, without jurisdiction, bad in law and all other
known principles of law.
2. That the total income computed and the total tax computed is hereby disputed.
3. That the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer is without jurisdiction, against the law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, equity and all other known principles of law.
4. That the findings, reasons, conclusions and directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u/s 144C are unsustainable in law requires to be set aside. Consequently the additions based on such directions also requires to be set aside.
5. The DRP erred in not considering the relevant materials, evidences, data and relevant law. The directions issued are without application of mind.
6. That the Order / Directions of the AO / DRP violates the principles of judicial discipline as the binding nature of the orders of the higher appellate authorities have been totally ignored.
7. That the order of the DRP and the directions given therein are bad in law and not as per law requires to be cancelled.
8. That the AO/TPO/DRP erred in not providing adequate and sufficient opportunity as required under law thus violating the principle of natural justice, hence on this ground alone the orders requires to be annulled.
ISSUE OF TRANSFER PRICING
9. That the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer is without jurisdiction, against the law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, equity and all other knownprinciples of law.
10.The learned DRP erred in overlooking the fact that the entire objections filed by the appellant have not been considered by the TPO before passing order u/s 92CA.
11.The appellant denies the tax liability on the surplus arising on the computation of arms length price for the impugned assessment year.
12. (i) The Learned AO erred in bringing to tax a sum of Rs. 341,54,75,724/-as outlined below in the table under section 92CA of the Act as per the communication/order of the Transfer Pricing Officer and the directions of DRP.
(ii) The learned TPO/ DRP erred in disregarding the use of multiple year data and ought to have accepted the use of contemporaneous data as per the transfer pricing regulations due to non availability of current year data in public domain at the time of preparing the report.
iii)The learned TPO/DRP erred in rejecting companies having different financial year ending or whose data does not fall within the 12 month period of impugned financial year.
iv)The learned TPO/DRP erred in not considering working capital adjustments.
v)The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in failing to rely on binding decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case for the assessment years 2002 - 03 to 2004 - 05, 2008-09 and subsequent orders of the ITAT for AY: 2005-06 & 2006-07.
13.i) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in making adjustment towards the royalty for use of technology amounting Rs.9,05,00,000/- without determining the comparable transaction in the public domain as prescribed under the Act and Rules.
ii) The Learned AO/TPO/DRP have failed to identify a comparable in terms of Rule 10B(3).
iii) The ld.AO/TPO/DRP erred in failing to rely on decision of the ITAT in appellant’s own case for the years 2002-03 to 2004-05 and subsequent orders of the ITAT for AY:2005-06 & 2006-07.
14.i) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in making adjustment towards the Arm's Length Price difference in tne distribution segment amounting 225 79,76,895/-.
ii. The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in making adjustment on transactions beyond AE transactions, thus, the adjustment proposed includes non AE transactions.
iii.The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in wrongly adopting the financial results of the assessee.
iv.The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in comparing the appellan s distribution margin with comparables which are not in the business of trading/distribution.
v.The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in not following their own orders passed for the earlier asst. years on this issue.
vi.The selection of the method by the Learned AO / TPO / DRP is not as per law.
vii.The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in not granting the variances deduction envisaged in the Act and Circular.