RABO SHARED SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO/NFAC DELHI, DELHI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the Ld. Assessing
Officer [National Faceless Assessment Centre] for assessment year
2017-18, raising following grounds:

Ground 1: D internationa business sup
On the facts learned AO, b law and on f transaction pe the Associate adjustment of Ground 2:
7,23,01,619
the Hon'ble the following
2.1 In rejectin
Appellant in from its AEs actually recei
2.2 In exceed questioning th for evidence t
2.3 In not certificate wh provision of e and also by allocation of including the 2.4 In failing the overseas availed locall services as a Appellant, by availed are du
2.5 In wrongl in the natur evaluate the the Appellant.
2.6 In errone
Evidence Act, provided the Rabo S
IT Determining the Arm's Length Price (A al transaction pertaining to pa pport services as NIL and circumstances of the case and i based on the directions of the Hon'ble DR facts, in determining the ALP of the in ertaining to payment of business support d Enterprise (AE) as NIL, and in making f INR 7,23,01,619. In making an upward adjustmen
9 for the payment of business suppor
DRP and the learned AO, inter-alia, g grounds:
ng the documentation and evidence subm support of the services received by the and in incorrectly concluding that no se ved by the Appellant.
ding his authority under section 92CA of t he business rationale of the expenditure to evaluate the benefits derived by the App taking into account the independen hich show the cost of services incurr each category of support service by each y disregarding the independent and cost of each category to the benefitti
Appellant.
to appreciate that the support services p
AEs is different and distinct from th ly and based on merely the nomenclatu appearing in the Profit and Loss acco arriving at the conclusion that the supp uplicate in nature.
ly evaluating that the support services p re of shareholder activities without bo nature of services actually provided by .
eously relying upon the provisions of , 1897 to conclude that in the event the required evidences, the same would
Shared Services Pvt. Ltd
2
TA No. 489/MUM/2022
ALP) of the ayment of in law, the RP, erred in nternational t services to an upward nt of INR rt services, a, erred on mitted by the e Appellant rvices were the Act and e by calling ppellant.
nt auditor's red for the of the AEs d scientific ing entities provided by he services ures of the ount of the ort services rovided are othering to the AEs to the Indian e Appellant have gone against it and requisite docu
Ground 3: In 270A of the On the facts a in initiating pe under-reportin misreporting for availing b order.
Ground 4: N
(TDS) and ad
On the facts a in not grantin advance tax p
'Rabo India entity [appoin fact that inc tax.credit has offered to tax
Ground 5: C
234C of the On the facts a in computing
234C of the A Each of the g may kindly be 2. At the outset, th a letter filed and su
“Direct Tax Vivad S filed the prescribed
Furthermore, Form issued to the assesse issued by the Depa
Rabo S
IT d thus, the Appellant purposely could not uments nitiation of penalty proceedings und
Act and circumstances of the case, the learne enalty proceedings under section 270A of ng of income which is in conse thereof for addition made with respect business support services in the final a Non-grant of credit for tax deducted dvance tax and circumstances of the case, the learne ng credit for TDS amounting to INR 55,86
paid amounting to INR 67,000,000 under Finance Limited' [RIFL], being the am nted date of 1 April 2017], without appre come earned by RIFL corresponding to s been consolidated with income of the during the year under consideration.
Consequential interest under section Act and circumstances of the case, the learne g consequential interest under section Act.
grounds of appeal referred above is sep e considered independent of each other he Learned Counsel for the asse ubmitted that the assessee ha
Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024” a Form No. 1 before the approp
No. 2, determining the tax lia ee. The assessee stated that, as artment, no tax liability is pa
Shared Services Pvt. Ltd
3
TA No. 489/MUM/2022
furnish the der section ed AO erred f the Act for equence of to payment assessment at source ed AO erred
61,302 and r the PAN of malgamating eciating the o the said e Appellant
234B and ed AO erred
234B and parate and r.
essee referred to as opted for the and has already priate authority.
ability, has been per Form No. 2
ayable, and the assessee is in the pr the provisions of the withdraw the pres infructuous.
3. In the result, th
Order pronoun (RAHUL CHA
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 25/02/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

Rabo S
IT rocess of filing Form No. 3 in a e Scheme. In light of the asses sent appeal, the same is he appeal of the assessee is dism ced in the open Court on 25/0
/-
AUDHARY)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Shared Services Pvt. Ltd
4
TA No. 489/MUM/2022
accordance with see’s request to dismissed as missed.
02/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai