MORGAN STANLEY SOLUTIONS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(2), MUMBAI

ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 is directed against an order passed by DCIT, Cir.9(2), (in short the Assessing Officer ) passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the Act) dated 30/10/2014, which is in conformity with the direction of the Dispute Resolution Pannel-1, Mumbai ( in short “the DRP”) dated 29/09/2014.

Vide letter dated 4th October, 2017, assessee has requested for 2. grant of permission to withdraw its appeal. The contents of the assessee’s letter read as under:-

“We refer to the captioned appeal scheduled for hearing before the Hon'ble 'K’ Bench on 5 October 2017.

In respect of the same, we wish to submit as under:

For the year under consideration, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) had granted relief on certain grounds following which the transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the transfer pricing officer would stand deleted. However, while issuing the final assessment order, the Assessing Officer (AO) did not consider the directions of the Hon'ble DRP for computing the arm's length price.

Therefore, the Assessee filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT to challenge the assessment order passed by the learned AO for, inter alia, failing to incorporate the directions issued by the Hon'ble DRP. Simultaneously, the Assessee had also filed a rectification letter dated 27 November 2014, in order to rectify these mistakes which are apparent from record.

Subsequent to the rectification application filed by the Assessee, the AO rectified the mistakes apparent from record by issuing an order dated 30 April 2015, under section 154 of the Income-tax Act,1961, giving appropriate effect to the DRP directions.

Given the above, we would like to withdraw this appeal with the permission of Your Honour.

Separately, the Assessee, in its grounds of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, stated that the learned AO has also erred in considering the activities undertaken by the Assessee as Knowledge Process outsourcing (KPO), without considering that, in prior years the same was held to be as Information technology enabled support services (ITES) and not KPO services.

The withdrawal of the captioned appeal by the Assessee is solely for the purpose of buying peace of mind and company is of the view that the functions performed are in the nature of ITES and not in the nature of KPO.

Accordingly, MSSI wishes to submit that withdrawal of the captioned appeal should not, in any manner; affect MSSI's right, for the purposes of ongoing/ past/ future litigation, to agitate similar grounds in other years or to contend that the functions performed by MSSI are in the nature of ITES and not in the nature of KPO.

We pray to your honour to kindly accept our request of withdrawal of appeal and oblige.”