MWH INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 12 (3)92), MUMBAI

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel dated 28.8.2019 pertaining to assessment year (A.Y.) 2008- 09.

read as under :- “1

0. Re.: Adjustment of Us. 1,22,83,697/- u/s 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961(the Act) on account of the provision of consultancy & design services: 1

1. The Assessing Officer ("AO') has erred in making an upward adjustment of Rs. 1,22,83,697/- in pursuance to the directions of the Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') and in the light of the order issued under section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act 1961 {'The Act") by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPCT) to the total income of the Appellant by holding that the international transaction relating to provision of consultancy & design services entered into by the Appellant with its Associated Enterprises ('AEs') was not entered at arm's length Price ('ALP'). 1

2. The Appellant submits that the learned AO/TPO/DRP erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law by rejecting the comparable companies selected by the Appellant in its Transfer Pricing Study Report ('TPSR') without giving any cogent reason for their rejection.

2 MWH India Pvt. Ltd.

1:3 The Appellant submits that the learned AO/TPO/DRP erred on the facts and circumstances of the case by re-computing the Profit Level Indicator ('PLF) working of the Appellant.

1:4 The Appellant submits that the learned AO/TPO/DRP erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law by not appropriately considering various submissions and judicial precedents relied upon by the Appellant which are applicable, having regards to the facts of the Appellant's case.

1:5 The Appellant submits that the learned AO/TPO/DRP erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law by rejecting comparable companies selected by the erstwhile TPO, the business of which is functionally comparable to that of the Appellant.

1:6 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, the international transaction relating to provision of consultancy & design services entered into by the Appellant with its AEs was entered at ALP and hence no adjustment in respect thereof was called for and the stand taken by the AO in this regard is misconceived, erroneous and incorrect.

1:7 The Appellant submits that the AO be directed to delete the upward adjustment of Rs. 1,22,83,697/- made by him to the Appellant's total income and to re-compute its total income and tax liability accordingly.

2:0 Re.: Adjustment of Us. 1,10,25,109/- u/s 92CA of the Act on account of the payment ofm an age merit charges:

2:1 The Appellant submits that the AO/TPO/DRP erred in considering the corporate charges paid by the Appellant to its AEs as shareholder services and consequently, erred in determining the ALP as Rs. NIL.

2:2 The Appellant submits that the AO/TPO/DRP erred in initiating separate adjustment in relation to payment of management charges which has been subsumed in the overall entity level adjustment.

2:3 Without prejudice to above, the Appellant submits that the AO/TPO/DRP erred in considering corporate charges as NIL for the purpose of calculation of PL1.

3:0 Penalty Proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act 3:1 The AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.

4:0 Re.: General:

4:1 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or substitute all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal.”

3 MWH India Pvt. Ltd.