M/s Wipro GE healthcare Pvt Ltd , Bangalore V. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-7, Bangalore

ITTPA 3154/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2020 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K R PRADEEP
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Principle of natural justice; International transaction; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 90; 234B; 115JB; 40(a)(ia); 144C

Judgement Text

IT(TP)A NO.3154(B)/2018 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : C, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDIC I AL MEMBER IT (TP) A NO.3154(BANG)/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 15) M/S WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PVT.LTD., NO.4, KADUGODI INDUSTRIAL AREA, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE - 560 0 67 PAN NO.A A A CW1685J APPELLANT VS THE JOINT COMMI S SIO N ER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 7, BANGALORE RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SRI K.R.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 06 - 0 8 - 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 - 09 - 2019 O R D E R PER SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER P RESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22/10/18 PASSED BY LD.JCIT UNDER SECTION 143 (3) READ WITH SECTION 144C 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, CIRCUMSTANC ES, NATURAL JUSTICE, IT(TP)A NO.3154(B)/2018 2 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. CONSE QUENTLY 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 KNOWN PRINCIPLES OF LAW. IT(TP)A NO.3154(B)/2018 3 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 LENG TH 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 DIREC TIONS OF DRP. S I . N O DESCRIPTION . AMOUNT 1 ARM'S LENGTH PRICE DIFFERENCE IN THE ROYALTY PAID RS. 9,05,00,000/ - 2 ARM'S LENGTH PRICE DIFFERENCE IN DISTRIBUTION SEGMENT RS.225,79,76, 5/ - 3 ARM'S LENGTH PRICE DIFFERENCE IN THE SOFTWARE SERVICES SEGMENT RS. 95,62,36,829/ - 4 ARM'S LENGTH PRICE DIFFERENCE IN THE SUPPORT SERVICES RS. 11,07,62,000/ - TOTAL ADJUSTMENT U/S 92CA RS. 341,54,75,724/ - , -- (II) THE LEARNED TPO/ DRP ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE USE OF MULTIPLE YEAR DATA AND OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED T HE 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 PR EPARING 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 CAPIT AL 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, IT(TP)A NO.3154(B)/2018 4 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 APPELLANTS 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 APPELLANT'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 O N 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. IT(TP)A NO.3154(B)/2018 5 VIII. THE LEARNED AO / TPO / DRP ERRED IN NOT CARRY ING OUT THE ADJUSTMENTS AS REQUIRED UNDER LAW AS WELL AS THE FACTS. IX.THE LEARNED AO/TPO/DRP HAVE FAILED TO IDENTIFY A COMPARABLE IN TERMS OF RULE 10B(3). X. THE LEARNED TPO/DRP ERRED IN REJECTING CERTAIN COMPARABLES ON UNSUSTAINABLE AND UNTENABLE GROUNDS/ REASONS WHILE CONSIDERING COMPARABLES WHICH FAILED TO MEET THE FILTERS /CRITERIA AS REQUIRED UNDER LAW. XI) THE LEARNED TPO/DRP ERRED IN CONSIDERING MAX MEDICAL SERVICES LTD AS A COMPARABLE REJECTING THE SUBMISSIONS / OBJECTIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. XII.THE LEARNED TPO/DRP ERRED IN REJECTING CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC SUPPLIES CO LTD AS A COMPARABLE. XIII. THE LEARNED AO / TPO / DRP ERRED IN FAILING TO RELY ON DECISION OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE YEARS 2002 - 03 TO 2004 - 05 AND SUBSEQUENT ORDERS OF T HE ITAT FOR OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS. XIVTHE LEARNED AO / TPO / DRP ERRED IN ADOPTING TNMM AS THE MAM IGNORING THE FINDINGS OF ITAT IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS AND ACCEPTED BY DEPARTMENT ON THE SAME ISSUE. XV.THE LEARNED AO/TPO ERRED IN NOT GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP ON FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS. XVI.THE LEARNED TPO / DRP HAVE FAILED TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 10B(4)&(5) WHILE SELECTING THE CRITERIA AND FILTERS. XVII.THE LEARNED TPO/DRP ERRED IN R EJECTING THE PRICE PER UNIT ADJUSTMENT CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT IT(TP)A NO.3154(B)/2018 6 XVIII..THE LEARNED TPO/DRP ERRED IN REJECTING THE IMPORT DUTY ADJUSTMENT CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT XIXTHE LEARNED TPO/DRP ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE AFTER SALES SUPPORT SERVICE SEGMEN T WHILE DETERMINING OPERATING MARGIN OF DISTRIBUTION SEGMENT. XXI) THE LEARNED TPO/DRP ERRED IN REJECTING THE CORROBORATIVE ANALYSIS PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT. XXII) THE LEARNED TPO. / DRP ERRED IN APPLYING THE TRADING INCOME THRESHOLD OF 75% TO SALES TO SELECT COMPARABLE COMPANIES. 15.I) THE LEARNED AO / TPO / DRP ERRED IN MAKING ADJUSTMENT TOWARDS THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE DIFFERENCE IN THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SEGMENT AMOUNTING RS. 95,62,36,829/ - . II) THE LEARNED AO / TPO / DRP ERRED IN SELECTING THE COMPARABLES. THE SELECTION OF COMPARABLES DOES NOT CONFIRM TO THE I.T. T RULES. FURTHER IT ALSO DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE CASE LAWS ON THIS POINT. III)THE LEARNED AO / TPO / DRP ERRED IN NOT CARRYING OUT THE ADJUSTMENTS LIKE RISK, WORKING CAPITAL, ETC., AS REQUIRED UNDER LA W AS WELL AS THE FACTS. IV)THE LEARNED AO / TPO / DRP ERRED IN WRONGLY ADOPTING THE FINANCIAL RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE. V)THE LEARNED AO/TPO/DRP HAVE FAILED TO IDENTIFY A COMPARABLE IN TERMS OF RULE 10B(3). VI)THE LEARNED TPO/DRP ERRED IN REJECTING CERTAIN COMPARABLES ON UNSUSTAINABLE AND UNTENABLE GROUNDS/REASONS WHILE CONSIDERING COMPARABLES WHICH FAILED TO MEET THE FILTERS /CRITERIA AS REQUIRED UNDER LAW. IT(TP)A NO.3154(B)/2018 7 VII) THE LEARNED AO / TPO / DRP ERRED IN NOT GRANTING THE VARIANCES DEDUCTION ENVISAGED IN THE ACT AND CIRCULAR. THE LEARNED TPO / DRP HAVE FAILED TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 10B(4)&(5) WHILE SELECTING THE CRITERIA AND FILTERS. VIII)THE LEARNED TPO / DRP ERRED IN REJECTING R & D EXPENSE MORE THAN 3% ON TURNOVER TO ELIMINATE COMPANIES ENGAGED IN R & D ACTIVITIES. IX) THE LEARNED TPO / DRP ERRED IN APPLYING THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE INCOME THRESHOLD OF 25% TO SALES TO SELECT COMPARABLE COMPANIES. X) THE LEARNED TPO / DRP ERRED IN REJECTING THE COMPARA BLE COMPANIES HAVING RATIO OF EMPLOYEE COST TO SALES LESS THAN 25%. XI) THE LEARNED TPO/DRP ERRED IN REJECTING THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES AS COMPARABLES REJECTING THE SUBMISSIONS / OBJECTIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. AKSHAY SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD DAFODILS SOFTWARE LTD L2T2 INDIA LTD MAVERIC SYSTEMS LTD XII. THE LEARNED TPO/DRP ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES AS COMPARABLES REJECTING THE SUBMISSIONS / OBJECTIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. INFOSYS LTD LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD MINDTREE LTD PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD R S SOFTWARE (INDIA) PVT LTD CIGNITI TECHNOLOGIES LTD THIRDWARE SOLUTION LTD 16.I) THE LEARNED AO / TPO / DRP ERRED IN MAKING ADJUSTMENT TOWARDS THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE DIFFERENCE IN THE SUPPORT IT(TP)A NO.3154(B)/2018 8 SERVICES/SPECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTING RS.1 1,07,62,000/ - . II)THE LEARNED TPO / DRP ERRED IN MAKING ADJUSTMENT ON SUPPORT SERVICES / SPECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS OVERLOOKING THE STATUTORY REPORTS AND THESE REPORTS CANNOT BE FOUND FAULT WITH IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT OR CONTRARY EVIDENCE. III.THE LEARNED AO / TPO / DRP ERRED IN NOT IDENTIFYING A COMPARABLE AS REQUIRED UNDER LAW. IVTHE LEARNED AO / TPO / DRP ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DETAILS, INFORMATION AND EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASS ESSEE. OTHER ISSUES/ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES 17.THE LEARNED AO / DRP ERRED IN DISALLOWING PROVISION FOR OBSOLESCENCE OF INVENTORY AMOUNTING TO RS. 24,53,00,000/ - . 18.THE LEARNED AO / DRP ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE SUM OF RS. 4,00,000/ - AS PROVISION FOR CONTIN GENT LIABILITY. 19.THE LEARNED AO / DRP ERRED IN ADDING BACK TO BOOK PROFITS THE PROVISION FOR CONTINGENT LIABILITY AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,00,000/ - IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLAUSE (C) OF EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. 20.THE LEARNED AO / DRP ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 67,37,500/ - ON THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF M/S. GE HEALTHCARE BANGLADESH LTD. 21.THE LEARNED AO / DRP ERRED IN DISALLOWING PROVISION FOR DEALER COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,14,51,647/ - FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 40(I) (IA) OF THE ACT. 22, THE LEARNED AO / DRP ERRED IN DISALLOWING PROVISION FOR ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,64,936/ - FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 40(I) (IA) OF THE ACT. 23. THE LEARNED AO / DRP ERRED IN DISALLOWING PROVISION FOR LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO IT(TP)A NO.3154(B)/2018 9 RS. 2,13,61,446/ - FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 40(I) (IA) OF THE ACT. 24. THE LEARNED AO / DRP ERRED IN DISALLOWING PROVISION FOR MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,20,49,241/ - FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 40(I) (IA) OF THE ACT. 25. THE LEARNED AO / DRP ERRED IN DISALLOWING PROVISION FOR REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 30,46,754/ - FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 40(I)(IA) OF THE ACT. 26.THE AO/DRP FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND CONSIDER THAT IF PAYEES /RECEIVERS / DEDUCTEES HAVE PAID THE TAX THEN NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 27.THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN MADE WITHOUT PROVIDING S UFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY AS REQUIRED UNDER LAW AND THE ACT. ON THIS GROUND ALONE THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCES REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 28.THE LEARNED AO/DRP ERRED IN RESTRICTING RELIEF U/S 90 OF THE ACT TO RS. 14,31,191/ - AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF RS. 55 ,64,950/ - . . 29.THE LEARNED AO/DRP ERRED IN RESTRICTING TDS CREDIT TO RS. 7,78,41,810/ - AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF RS. 8,66,48,067/ - . ISSUE OF INTEREST U/S 234A & C. 30.THE APPELLANT DENIES THE LIABILITIES FOR INTEREST U/S 234B & C OF THE ACT. FURTHER PRAYS THAT THE INTEREST IF ANY SHOULD BE LEVIED ONLY ON RETURNED INCOME. 31. NO OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GIVEN BEFORE THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B & C OF THE ACT. 32. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE APPELLANT'S RIGHT OF SEEKING WAIVER BEFORE APP ROPRIATE AUTHORITY THE APPELLANT BEGS FOR CONSEQUENTIA! RELIEF IN THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B & C OF THE ACT. 33. THE APPELLANT DENIES LIABILITY FOR INTEREST U/S 234B ON THE ADJUSTMENT MADE U/S 92CA OF THE ACT AND RELIES ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT V KWALITY BISCUITS LTD REPORTED IN 284 ITR 434. IT(TP)A NO.3154(B)/2018 10 34. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS AND REASONS WHICH MAY BE SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTS THAT THE APPEAL BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED AND JUSTICE BE RENDERED 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER : A SSESSEE IS A JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN GENERAL ELECTRIC CO USA AND WIPRO LTD. IT HAS BEEN STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN CONTRACT MANUFACTURING OF MEDICA L DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING EQUIPMENT, ULTRASOUND SYSTEMS, PATIENT MONITORING AND X - R AY SYSTEMS, PROVISION OF ENGINEERING AND SOFTWARE SERVICES AND DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING EQUIPMENT, THERAPY EQUIPMENT AND LIFE SCIENCE PRODUCTS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS AE AND SPECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS. LD. TPO/AO PASSED THE ORDER BY MAKING FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: 1. TP ADJUSTMENT ROYALTY DISTRIBUTION SEGMENT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SEGMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (SPECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS) 2. PROVISION FOR OBSOLESCENCE OF INVENTORY 3. PROVISION FOR CONTINGENT LIABILITY 4. INTEREST DISALLOWANCE ON INVESTMENT IN M/S WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE BANGLADESH LTD 5. DISALLOWANCE OF DEALERS COMMISSION 6. DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40A (IEA) FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TAXES ON; ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 7. RELIEF UNDER SECTION 90 8. TDS CREDIT IT(TP)A NO.3154(B)/2018 11 3. A T THE OUTSET , ADMITTEDLY IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ALL ISSUES RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN PRESENT APPEAL ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY DECISIONS OF THIS T RIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 TO 2013 - 14. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT ALL ISSUES HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BY THIS TR IBUNAL TO LD. TPO FOR RE - ADJUDICATION AFRESH. 4 . WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SIDES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 5. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO.1 - 12 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE, DO NOT REQUIRE ADJUDICATION. LD. AR HAS FILED BEFORE US A CHART DETAILING MANNER IN WHICH THE GROUNDS IN PRESENT A PPEAL ARE COVERED BY ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR E AR LIER YE A RS WHICH IS ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE - I. AS SUBMITTED BY LD.AR, WE HAVE PERUSED AL L DECISIONS PASSED BY THIS T RIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 TO 2013 - 14 AND FOUND THAT ISSUES IN PRESENT AP PEAL ARE COMMON WITH EARLIER YEARS AND HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE TO LD. TPO ON THE GROUND THAT TPO AS WELL AS DRP FAILED TO CONSIDER OBJECTIONS RAISED BY ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF TRANSF ER PRICING ADDITION MADE BY LD. A O . I T IS OBSERVED THA T DRP/TPO FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DID NOT CONSIDER OBJECTIONS RAISED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST COMPARABLES SELECTED BY LD. TPO AND SIMPLY FOLLOWED DRP DIRECTIONS ISSUED FOR AY 2013 - 14. AS AY: 2013 - 14 HAS BE E N SET ASIDE BY THIS TRIBUNAL, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE ISSUE S TO FILE OF LD. AO/TPO FOR TAKING NECESSARY ACTION OF PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER BY GRANTING FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD . IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT ALL THESE ISSUES ARE PENDING BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND WE FIND NO REASON TO ADJUDICATE THESE ISSUES AT THIS S TAGE. ACCORDINGLY , IT(TP)A NO.3154(B)/2018 12 FOLLOWING EARLIER ORDERS PASSED BY THIS T RIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE SET ASIDE ALL ISSUES TO LD. AO FOR RE - ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN EARLIER YEARS. ( REFER ANNEXURE I) 6. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06 - 09 - 2019 SD/ - SD/ - (B.R.BASKARAN) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 06 - 09 - 2019 AM* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5. DR 6. ITO (TDS) 7 .GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR