Doddakannelli, Income Tax, Sarjapur Road, Range 12, Bangalore 560 025. Bangalore. PAN : AAACW 0387R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.A. Respondent by : Shri S.K. Ambastha, CITI(DR) Date of hearing : 25.06.2012 Date of Pronouncement : 18072012 ORDER Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of assessment dt.28.10.2010 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA No.1349/Bang/2010 Page 2 of 51 Circle 12, Bangalore in accordance with the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u/s. 144(5) r.w.s. 144C(8) of the Act dt.26.9.2011. The Assessment Year involved is 200607. 2. The Assessee is a company. It is engaged in the business of developing software. In view of international transactions the assessee had with Associated Enterprises (AE), the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA for determination of the arm's length price (ALP) after obtaining the approval of the CIT. The TPO by order under section 92CA of the Act dt.27.9.2010 suggested Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs.4,75,86,539 on the issue of interest chargeable to its associated enterprises. In view of the transfer pricing adjustment, a draft order under section 144C of the Act was passed on 31.12.2009. The assessee company filed objections thereto before the DRP on 29.01.2010. The DRP vide directions dt.27.09.2010 referred to above did not accept the assessee's objections to the TP adjustment and directed the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment accordingly. Besides the above, other several other additions were made to the income returned by the Assessee in the draft assessment order. After the order of the DRP, a fair assessment order was passed determining total income as proposed in the draft assessment order and in accordance with the directions of the DRP on the draft assessment order. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the order of assessment on 28.10.2010. The various issues will be now dealt with as projected in the grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee before us. 3. Grounds 1 to 4 are general in nature and do not call for any specific adjudication. Grounds 5 to 9 raised by the Assessee relate to the addition of ITA No.1349/Bang/2010 Page 3 of 51 Rs.4,75,86,539/ by way of Transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest on advances given to Associated Enterprises who were wholly owned subsidiaries of the Assessee. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that the ground raised at S.No.9 regarding grant of safe harbor adjustment of + / 5 % of ALP is not being pressed in this appeal and is therefore accordingly dismissed as infructuous. The Assessee had given advances to its associated enterprises but did not charge any interest on such loans. The loan in question was an international transaction. Therefore the provisions of Sec.92CA of the Act were applicable. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) determined interest on such interest free loans that ought to have been charged at Rs.4,75,86,539/. The same was accepted by the AO and approved by the DRP. It is not in dispute before us that the basis of determination of the ALP and the justification for such adjustment was the same as was done in the earlier assessment years in respect of identical interest free advances to AE. 4. It is not in dispute before us that identical issue had come up for consideration in AY 0708 in ITA No.972/Bang/2011 order dated 15.6.2012 and this tribunal held as follows: "5.3 In respect of the grounds at S.Nos.5 to 9, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in making a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 9,67,89,370 based on the TPO's order and the confirmation of this by the DRP on the issue of interest on advances given