ITA No 1671 & 441/ Del/201516 AY 201011 & 201112 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "I1": NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1671/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 201011) Black Rock Services India Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, th Limited, 5 Floor, HSIDC Building Vanijya 3rd Floor, Rolta Corporate Towers, 187, Nikunj, Udyog Vihar, PhaseV, PhaseI, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon Gurgaon PAN: AABCH4449Q (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 441/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 201112) Black Rock Services India Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Limited, Income tax , rd 3 Floor, Rolta Corporate Towers, 187, Circle1(1), PhaseI, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon Gurgaon PAN: AABCH4449Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv Shri Anubhav Rastogi, Adv Revenue by: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13/02/2019 Date of pronouncement 06/05/2019 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. ITA No. 1671/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 201011) 1. This appeal is filed by Black Rock services India private limited in ITA number 1671/Del/2015 for Assessment Year 2010 11 against the order of The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Gurgaon [The ld AO ] passed u/s 143 (3) read with section 144C of The Income Tax Act[ The Act] on 24/2/2015 wherein the transfer pricing adjustment of INR 1 4283265/ pursuant to the direction of The Dispute Resolution Panel III, New Delhi [ The ld DRP ] dated 22/12/2014 under section 144C (5) of the act was incorporated wherein 1|Page objections were filed by the assessee against the draft of the proposed assessment passed by the learned AO wherein adjustment proposed by The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing, Chandigarh [ The Ld TPO] as per order passed u/s 92CA (3) of the act dated 24/1/2014 the adjustment of INR 1 5891990/ was proposed to the international transaction of INR 1 38558316/ was incorporated. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 1671/Del/2015 for the Assessment Year 201011: "1. The assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer („Ld. AO‟) pursuant to the directions of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel („Ld. DRP‟) based on the facts and in the circumstance of the case is bad in law and void abinitio. 2. The Ld. DRP and the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer („Ld. TPO‟) / Ld. AO (following the directions of the Ld. DRP), erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 1,42,83,265 holding that the international transactions pertaining to provision of routine IT enabled services do not satisfy the arm‟s length principle envisaged under the Act and in doing so have grossly erred by: 2.1 not finding any merit in the objections of the Appellant that none of the conditions set out in section 92(1(3) of the Act are satisfied in the present case; 2.2 rejecting the Transfer Pricing („TP‟) documentation maintained by the Appellant under section 92D of the Act and Rule 10D of the Rules and disregarding the arm‟s length price („ALP‟) as determined by the Appellant in the TP documentation; 2.3 disregarding the fact that the Appellant is a captive IT enabled service provider which does not bear substantial risks associated with it