Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Unitedhealth Group Information ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 9 February, 2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH 'I1' : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.825/Del./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200910) United Health Group Information Services vs. DCIT, Circle 18 (1), Private Limited, New Delhi. 14th Floor, Tower B, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector 39, Gurgaon 122 002 (Haryana). (PAN : AADCA6769Q) ITA No.419/Del./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200910) DCIT, Circle 18 (1), vs. United Health Group Information New Delhi. Services Private Limited, 14th Floor, Tower B, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector 39, Gurgaon 122 002 (Haryana). (PAN : AADCA6769Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Kumar Pranav, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 15.01.2018 Date of Order : 09.02.2018 ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : 2 ITA No.825/Del/2014 ITA No.419/Del/2014 Present cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as by the revenue are being disposed of by way of consolidated order to avoid repetition of discussion. 2. The Appellant, United Group Information Services Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the taxpayer') by filing the present appeal being ITA No.825/Del/2014 sought to set aside the impugned order dated 20.12.2013, passed by the AO in consonance with the orders passed by the ld. DRP/TPO under section 143 (3) read with section 144C of the Incometax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') qua the assessment year 200910 on the grounds inter alia that : "1. That, the impugned order of assessment framed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Circle 18(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned AO') pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel II (hereinafter referred to as 'the Hon'ble DRP') under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Incometax Act, 1961 ('Act'), is a vitiated order having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and is otherwise arbitrary and is thus bad in law and is void abinitio. 2. That, without prejudice, the learned AO has grossly erred in making a transfer pricing addition of Rs.277,999,266/ and a corporate tax addition of Rs.14,857,889 while computing the income of the Appellant. The addition made to the returned income is highly unjustified and also suffers from mistakes apparent from record. 3. That the Hon'ble DRP has committed gross errors in confirming the order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act by the learned Transfer Pricing officer (the learned TPO') proposing a transfer pricing adjustment to the actual value of the international transactions of the Appellant with its associated enterprises and only granting a partial relief thereof. 3 ITA No.825/Del/2014 ITA No.419/Del/2014 4. That on the facts and in law, the learned TPO has grossly erred in treating foreign exchange gain/ loss as nonoperating item while determining the arm's length price of the international transactions of the Appellant without considering the terms & conditions of the intercompany transactions of the Appellant. 5. The learned AO/TPO/DRP has erred by not making appropriate adjustments on account of working capital differences between the Appellant visavis the comparables companies, without appreciating the fact that the similar adjustment has been allowed to the Appellant in the assessment year 200708 & assessment year 201011. Thus, in the absence of any substantial change in the functional profile of the Appellant and following the principle of res judicata, the benefit of working capital adjustment should be allowed for AY 200910 as well. 6. That without prejudice, on the fact and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in not allowing a risk adjustment to the Assessee on account of the fact that the Appellant is a captive service provider for its a