Pvt. Ltd, Circle21(1), N226, LGF, Greater kailash1, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AADCR6247E (Appellant) (Respondent) SA No. 235/Del/2019 (In ITA No. 7239/Del/2018) (Assessment Year: 201415) Red Fort Shahjahan Properties Vs. DCIT, Pvt. Ltd, Circle21(1), N226, LGF, Greater kailash1, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AADCR6247E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv Revenue by: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR Ms. Nimita Pandey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26/03/2019 Date of pronouncement 14/06/2019 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by Red Ford Shanjhan Properties Pvt Ltd { assessee, appellant} against the order of the deputy Commissioner of income tax circle 21 (1), New Delhi (the learned assessing officer passed u/s 143 (3) read with section 144C of the income tax act, 1961 (the act) dated 24/10/2018. In the assessment order against the returned income of the assessee of rupees for 1674470/ transfer pricing adjustment of INR 3 4682874/ and addition on account of accrued interest on loan of INR 3 8413000/ was made and consequently the total income was assessed at Page | 1 rupees 114770344/. Aggrieved by the order of the learned assessing officer assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That on facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel („Ld. DRP‟) grossly erred in issuing directions to the Learned Assessing Officer („Ld. AO‟)/ Learned Transfer Pricing Officer („Ld. TPO‟) for making further enquiry while passing the final assessment order in complete disregard to provisions of section 1440(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) and thereby rendering the final assessment order passed by Ld. AO as void abinitio. 1.1 Without prejudice to the Ground of appeal No. 1, the Ld. AO/TPO grossly erred in violating the principles of natural justice in not providing the Appellant with necessary data to confirm compliance to the directions of the Ld. DRP before issuance of the final assessment order. 2. On a further without prejudice basis, the Ld. DRP grossly erred in confirming the arbitrary and selfcontradicting approach of the Ld. AO/TPO in making transfer pricing adjustment of INR 3,46,82,874 on interest payment on Fully and Compulsory Convertible Debentures („FCCDs‟) by Appellant to its Associated Enterprise („AE‟) without reference to actual terms of comparable security issuance, a necessary requirement in terms of Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 („the Rules‟). 3. On a further without prejudice basis, the Ld. DRP erred in confirming transfer pricing addition pertaining to interest payment on FCCDs by: 3.1. not appreciating that none of the conditions set out in section 92C(3) of the Act are satisfied in the present case; 3.2. rejecting, without reason, the quantitative and qualitative screens/filters applied and set of comparables arrived at by the Appellant, following a detailed and robust search methodology carried out in the Transfer Pricing ('TP') documentation (also referred to as „TP Study‟ or „TP Report‟) maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income tax Rules, 1962 („Rules‟) and proceeding to arrive at the fresh comparables set by applying certain arbitrarily selected filters and arriving at his own comparables set instead; 3.3. benchmarking the interest rate paid by the Appellant on FCCDs issued to its AE using the fresh search, by applying insufficien