Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
In respect of transfer pricing addition made by Ld.AO. It is observed that 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 2014-15. As AY: 2014-15 has been set aside by this Tribunal, we deem it fit and proper to remit the issues 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 are pending before lower authorities and we find no reason adjudicate these issues at this stage. Accordingly, following earlier orders passed by this Tribunal in assessee’s 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.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
Present appeal has been filed by assessee against final assessment order dated 31/10/19 passed by Ld.ACIT Circle 7(1)(2) under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act, for assessment year 2015-16 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 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.
4. The DRP erred in not considering the relevant materials, evidences, data and relevant law. The directions. issued are without application of mind.
5. That the Orders AO/TPO Directions of the DRP violates the principles of judicial discipline as the binding nature of the orders of the higher appellate authorities have been totally ignored.
6. That the order of the AO/TPO/DRP and the directions given therein are bad in law and not as per law requires to be cancelled.
7. 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
8. 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.
9.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.
10.The appellant denies the tax liability on the surplus arising on the computation of arms length price for the impugned assessment year.
11. (i) The Learned AO erred in bringing to tax a sum of Rs. 246,02,17,944/- 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,
