|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1543 Records
-
2024 (2) TMI 1504
Assignment of the loan - Petitioner's loan account was improperly declared as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) or a stressed account - HELD THAT:- The assignment of asset to a new entity by the lender need not be on an express consent of the borrower. Knowledge to the borrower would be suffice and knowledge to the petitioner in the case at hand cannot be disputed.
The plea of assignment being contrary to the Master Circulars as is projected is untenable and all submissions shrouded with the plea of it being contrary to Master Circulars are all unsustainable. Assignment or re-assignment by private entities or in the business of banking is best left to bankers, borrowers and the lenders unless it runs contrary to any statutory provision either under the SARFAESI Act or Circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India which are held to have statutory force - there are no statutory aberration in the case at hand qua Master Circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India. If there is no statutory aberration, the plea would be reduced to a dispute between the petitioner, a private entity and respondents 4 to 6, a private entity and respondent No.7 another private entity.
This Court would not sit as a supervisor to banking activities between the lender and the borrower except in cases where the dispute between the banker and the lender would touch upon violation of any statutory provision. No such violation though projected with all vehemence is found in the case at hand - any of the prayers sought by the petitioner declined to be granted.
Conclusion - The transfer of stressed assets does not require NPA classification and that banking decisions are generally not subject to judicial review unless statutory violations are evident.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1502
Challenge to assessment order issued under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - imposition of GST under the reverse charge mechanism on the seigniorage paid by the petitioner to the Government - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in TVL. A. VENKATACHALAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'It is made clear that there shall be no recovery of GST on royalty until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench takes a decision.'
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1501
Addition u/s 56(2)(x) - considering the date of acquisition of immovable property as the date of agreement and not the date of allotment letter - whether the exception under the first proviso is applicable since the same mentions the date of agreement to be considered and that in assessee's case whether the letter of allotment is the agreement to sell in order to consider the stamp duty value on that date and not the date of sale?
HELD THAT:- In assessee's case the advance payment is made through account payee check and the allotment letter with the terms of balance payment and other conditions of delivery of flat etc is issued. Therefore above decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal of Parth Dashrath Gandhi [2023 (1) TMI 1253 - ITAT MUMBAI] is applicable to assessee's case also. Accordingly we hold that the addition made by the AO is not sustainable and be deleted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1500
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner with retrospective effect - SCN was given with a different allegation and the cancellation of the registration has been done on altogether different ground - opportunity of personal hearing not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the instant cancellation of registration has been passed pursuant to the earlier show cause notice dated 15.12.2023, to which the petitioner had replied on 21.12.2023. The passing of the show cause notice and the impugned order of cancellation of registration clearly indicate that the show cause notice was given with a different allegation and the cancellation of the registration has been done on altogether different ground other than that which is mentioned in the show cause notice.
Further, what is also admittedly evident that before passing of order of cancellation of registration, the petitioners also have not afforded with any opportunity of personal hearing so as to justify their stand in respect of the alleged allegation of any fraud, willful, misstatement and suppression of fact. Neither the show cause notice nor order of cancellation of registration provides for any reason or findings by which the authorities thought of issuance of show cause notice and suspend the operation of the GST registration and also which lead to the cancellation of the GST registration.
This Court, recently, in Sri Avanthika Sai Venkata JV [2024 (2) TMI 416 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT] had allowed the writ petition setting aside the cancellation of registration under similar circumstances and the matter was remitted back for the respondent authorities to pass an order afresh.
Recently, there was yet another decision of the High Court of Bombay under similar circumstances in the case of Nirakar Ramchandra Pradhan v. Union of India and Others [2023 (9) TMI 1176 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] whereby a show cause notice issued for cancellation of registration and the subsequent cancellation of GST registration was subjected to challenge, wherein, the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay held 'The impugned action in issuing such show cause notice and passing of the impugned order thereon, has in fact proved counter-productive to the interest of revenue, if the department is correct in its case as put up in the reply affidavit for the first time. The concerned Commissionerate needs to take a serious view of such approach of the concerned Officers who are not following the law in issuing appropriate show cause notices more particularly when the issues are serious. Such deviation by the concerned officers from deviating the following the well settled norms and procedures, in fact would benefit an assessee if there is material that he was committed illegalities.'
Taking into consideration the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and also considering the factual aspects as is evident in the instant case, it is opined that the show cause notice as also the impugned order lacks information and details as to the alleged fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts, if any, committed by the petitioner. Therefore, it would be difficult to sustain the said impugned order.
Conclusion - Neither the show cause notice nor order of cancellation of registration provides for any reason or findings by which the authorities thought of issuance of show cause notice and suspend the operation of the GST registration and also which lead to the cancellation of the GST registration. The cancellation order set aside due to procedural defects and lack of substantiated allegations, allowing the respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice if necessary.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1499
Challenge to SCN - allegation is that the GST registration has been obtained by means of fraud and willful miss-statement and separation of fact - order passed without giving appropriate personal hearing notice - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The earlier round of litigation was W.P.No. 17608 of 2023 and the challenge in the said writ petition was to the earlier show cause notice that was issued on 01.07.2023 which was said to have been passed without giving appropriate personal hearing notice. The said writ petition stood allowed and disposed on 07.07.2023.
Since the matter is already seized by the Department themselves and also keeping in view the earlier decision in the case of the petitioner itself for the same cause of action, we are of the considered opinion that it would be more appropriate in the interest of justice, if the writ petition itself disposed of at this juncture. The order of suspension dated 14.02.2024, to the aforesaid extent is set aside/quashed. The respondents are directed to ensure that the petitioner is permitted to fully participate in the show cause proceedings and he would also be permitted to furnish his GST returns in between. Meanwhile, however, since the show cause proceedings has already been initiated, the petitioner shall be restrained from availing the Input Tax Credit, during the pendency of the show cause proceedings.
Conclusion - The show cause notice was upheld as valid. The suspension of GST registration was set aside with conditions.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1498
Proceedings issued u/s 115WE - taxability of fringe benefits - benefits provided to the employees by way of supply of electricity to their residence, township and street lights - whether this so called benefit is one which is for the welfare of the employees or not and whether it is not part of the statutory obligation? - HELD THAT:- As per un-amended “Explanation” to Section 115WB (2) (E) of the Act, it would further make it clear that any expenditure which was incurred in order to fulfill a statutory obligation would not be considered as an expenditure for employees welfare. So also, when we look into the subsequent amendment brought to the “Explanation” to Clause E of Sub-Section 2 of Section 115WB, sub-clause (i) it also clearly excludes expenses incurred or payments made to fulfill any statutory obligation. So, under both the circumstances i.e. even prior to the amendment to the explanation w.e.f. 01.04.2009, the expenditure incurred towards the supply of electricity by the appellant to its employees would be excluded for the purpose of treating it as an expenditure towards the employees benefit is concerned.
We are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the AO, so also by the CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal are not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside/quashed. It is held that the expenditure so incurred by the appellant towards the supply of electricity would be excluded from being treated as an expenditure towards the employees welfare. Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1497
Challenge to Seizure Memo - seeking provisional release of the goods - HELD THAT:- Today when the matter is taken up, there has been a statement made before the Bench that the issue involved in the instant case has already been considered and decided by this very Bench in two writ petitions of identical nature i.e. W.P.No.843 and W.P. No. 2014 of 2024 [2024 (4) TMI 540 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT]. Both of the writ petitions stood allowed and decided by order dated 08.02.2024.
In view of the fact that identical issues have already been decided by this Bench, it is inclined to allow the instant writ petition also on identical terms. It is ordered that let the respondent authorities pass an order on the application filed by the petitioner for provisional release of the goods subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed.
HELD THAT:- The respondent authorities directed to pass an order for the provisional release of the goods upon payment of enhanced duty by the petitioner - petition allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1496
Disallowance of provisions for Lease Rent Expenses - HELD THAT:- On perusal of computation sheet furnished by the Assessee in respect of 127 operational leases we find that, both, upward as well as downward adjustment of lease rental expenses has been made for the relevant previous year. We note that the Assessee has been following this method of accounting for operational lease expenses on a consistent basis over the years. We also note that the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2010-11 which has also been followed while deciding cross-appeals for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
Therefore, we delete the disallowance made by the AO in respect of provision for operational lease rentals. Ground No. III raised by the Assessee is allowed.
Net disallowance in respect of Enhancement & Customization Expenses and in respect of Facility Management Charges debited to the Profit & Loss Account - HELD THAT:- Assessee is engaged in the business of stock broking. The annual maintenance expenses have been incurred by the Assessee for keeping the software in line with the regulatory requirements and business requirements. Assessee has been incurring the annual maintenance charges on a recurring basis for smooth functioning of business. Vide order [2018 (4) TMI 931 - ITAT MUMBAI] for the Assessment Year 2011-12 the Tribunal had deleted the disallowance of Enhancement & Customization Expenses and allowed deduction for identical annual maintenance expenses paid/payable to TCS as revenue expenditure.
We are not persuaded to take a view, different from the aforesaid view taken by the Tribunal in appeal for the Assessment Year 2011-12. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction for annual maintenance expenses paid/payable to TCS as revenue expenditure; delete the disallowance and direct the AO to reverse the depreciation @ 25% granted to the Assessee.
Facility Management Charges - As perused the sample invoices and the letters dated 31/03/2011 and 19/10/2011 and find that the same support the stand of the Assessee. Wipro has agreed to provide facility management services to the Assessee for a fixed fee and accordingly invoices were raised by Wipro on the Assessee for the facility management charges. We note that while making the disallowance, the AO has not made any observations regarding the facility management charges. Therefore, order passed by the AO holding Facility Management Charges as capital expenditure cannot be sustained.
Repairs & Maintenance Expenses to be allowed as revenue expenditure.
TDS u/s 194J - disallowance of Data Circuit/Broadband/Multi-Protocol Label Bandwidth Charges u/s 40(a)(ia) - CIT(A) deleted addition - primary contention of the Revenue was that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition without even carrying out basic verification - HELD THAT:- In our view, the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be sustained. Given the facts and circumstances of the present case we deem it appropriate to remand this issue back to the file of the CIT(A) who shall adjudicate the same after calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer in respect of additional evidence furnished by the Assessee as per law and after giving the Assessee opportunity to file response to the same.
Disallowance of various expenses on ad-hoc basis - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- We are not convinced with the submissions advanced by the Ld. Departmental Representative. The Assessee has furnished details of various expenses and had explained the nature and purpose of such expenditure. Without specifying or identifying the infirmity in the specific invoices, bills and vouchers pertaining to expenses furnished by the Assessee, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make a general observation that certain expenses were not supported by proper bills and vouchers. We concur with the CIT(A) that disallowance made on ad-hoc basis cannot be sustained in the facts of the present case. Further, the Assessing Officer has moved on the presumption that the expenses involved personal element without identifying or quantifying such expenses. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by CIT(A) deleting ad-hoc disallowance.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1495
Dependent agent PE (DAPE) in India - nature of transaction between the assessee and ESPN India - HELD THAT:- Appellant had woefully failed to adduce any evidence which may have lent credence to its contention of a fixed place PE.
The case of a DAPE appears to have been raised in the backdrop of Article 12(4)(i) of the India- Mauritius DTAA. However, the contract stipulations would unerringly point towards a manifest absence of a right having been conferred or an authority granted to conclude contracts in the name of ESS Distribution (Mauritius). The ITAT has found that the Indian entities stood conferred with an independent right to enter into contracts with cable operators for channel distribution and that ESS Distribution (Mauritius) was not privy to those agreements. In terms of those agreements, it is the Indian entities which bear associated distribution costs and expenses. The agreements unequivocally establish that ESS Distribution (Mauritius) is in no manner connected with the contracts executed by the Indian entities with cable operators and other intermediaries. Even the right to initiate legal action by the latter is available to be exercised only against the Indian entities.
As far as the additional issue of profit attribution is concerned, we note that since there is no PE, the issue of profit attribution would clearly not arise. This issue, in any case, stands concluded in light of the judgment rendered in E-Funds IT Solution Inc. [2017 (10) TMI 1011 - SUPREME COURT]
Royalty receipt - As manifest from a reading of Article 12(3) that payments would fall within its ambit provided they represent “consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work”. As is evident from a reading of the agreement conditions extracted hereinabove, there was no transfer of copyright. The agreement that ESS Distribution (Mauritius) came to execute conferred no right with respect to copyright upon the Indian entities. This aspect, in any case, is liable to be answered in favour of the assessee bearing in mind the decision of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited [2021 (3) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT] and which had clearly held and recognized the distinction between a broadcasting right and a copyright as flowing from Sections 14 and 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (1957 Act). This quite apart from the undisputed fact that insofar as the present respondent is concerned, even the question of broadcasting rights does not arise since it was in no manner connected therewith. No merit in the instant appeals.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1494
Time limitation on filing petition - Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Personal Guarantor - service of demand notice - HELD THAT:- Clause 12 r/w Clause L of the recital of the Deed of Guarantee dt. 10.04.2014 makes it clear that this Guarantee was to come into force only upon implementation of CDR package in full and signed by all the lenders in terms of LOA issued. Ld. Counsel for the Personal Guarantor place on record a letter dt. 23.03.2016 having reference No BY.CDR(DAP)No. 749/2015-16, stating that the Company M/s Parekh Aluminex Limited stands exited from the CDR mechanism as failure.
Time limitation - HELD THAT:- It is found that the Financial Creditor invoked the Guarantee on 18.05.2016 by Notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Corporate Debtor came to be admitted into CIRP on 01.02.2019. Since, it is already returned the finding that this Guarantee had not become effective on account of failure in implementation of CDR Package, it is not required to deal with the issue of limitation any further.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1493
Condonation of 15 days’ delay in filing the Appeal - HELD THAT:- The aforesaid clearly indicate that the resolution plan was approved by the CoC prior to 03.02.2023 and the claim which was filed by the Appellant was subsequent to approval of the plan by the CoC. When the plan was already approved by the CoC, we are of the view that no error has been committed by the Resolution Professional in refusing to admit the claim. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected I.A. No. 1219 of 2023 filed by the Appellant.
There is no merit in the Appeal - Appeal is dismissed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1492
Rectification of mistake - TP Adjustment - Arm's length price of Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenses - Resale Price Method [‘RPM’] as adopted by the appellant/assessee - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has recorded a conclusive finding that application of RPM is appropriate in the instant case. However, thereafter the Tribunal proceeded to determine the arms length price of AMP expenses and directed the TPO to restrict the adjustment
ITAT appears to have felt constrained to not attempt to rectify the apparent inconsistency bearing in mind, and in its estimation, the limited extent and scope of power that stands vested upon it by virtue of Section 254(2) of the Act.
However, and since the inconsistency is apparent on the face of the record, we allow ITA and set aside the order. The matter shall stand remitted to the ITAT for considering the appeal afresh.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1491
Royalty receipts - receipts of the assessee from its clients in India Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - Appellant sought to contend that the fees so generated from that exercise would fall within the ambit of “fee for technical services” in terms of Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA - HELD THAT:- The mere undertaking of background checks of an employee or the verification of testimonials cannot possibly be recognised as entailing the use of any technical knowledge, experience or skill as provided under Article 13(4) of the India-UK DTAA.
Assessee is merely verifying disclosures and which activity cannot be recognised as being imbued with any technological characteristic. There is also a complete absence of a transfer of data or information which could be described as “technical” as the word is commonly understood. In view of the aforesaid, we find no reason to take a view contrary to what has been expressed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1490
Denial of Foreign Tax Credit - appellant had not filed Form No.67 read with Rule 28 of the IT Rules i.e. the statement of income from a country or specified territory outside India - HELD THAT:- As relying on case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. [1991 (8) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT] Rule 128(9) of the IT Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay in filing Form No.67. Filing of such Form 67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement. Moreso, when DTAA overrides the provision of the Act, the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act and hence, this right to claim of FTC is a vested right of the appellant, cannot be denied.
We find sufficient case has been made out by the appellant. Hence, respectfully relying upon the same, we allow the appeal on this aspect of filing of Form No. 67. We condone the delay, if any. We, thus, direct the Ld. CIT(A) to pass orders on merit strictly in accordance with law.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1489
TP Adjustment - Selection of MAM - ALP adjustment of international transactions from Associated Enterprises - HELD THAT:- ITAT has principally faulted the decisions and directions rendered by the TPO and DRP upon finding that the assessee had adopted the Transactional Net Margin Method/TNMM as being the most appropriate method for the purposes of computation of ALP which was never discarded. It has found on facts that even though neither the TPO nor the DRP doubted that TNMM was the most appropriate method, they had proceeded to direct additions as noticed above.
It has also adversely commented upon the TPO as well as the DRP undertaking an exercise in seeking to re-evaluate the cost of raw materials purchased. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, it has found that both the TPO as well as the DRP erred in proceeding to consider issues which travelled far beyond the determination of ALP. It has also been found on facts that the TPO has compared controlled transactions with other controlled transactions, losing sight of the imperative of the comparison being made with “uncontrolled transactions”.
It has thus found that the direction as framed would clearly be contrary to Section 92F(ii) of the Act and which mandates that ALP would be the price identified for a “transaction between persons other than associated enterprises in uncontrolled conditions”.
Additions have come to be annulled. The view as taken by the ITAT cannot possibly be faulted. No substantial question of law.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1488
Addition u/s 68 - bogus short Term Capital gain on sale of shares - ITAT deleted addition - HELD THAT:- The payment for purchase was through account payee cheque. The purchase and sale was through a Demat Account maintained by an independent agency. The shares were sold through registered share broker by an online transaction and as per the share prices prevalent on that day. AO failed to contradict the evidence adduced by the respondent to support the claim of long term capital gain.
It was considered that the statements recorded at the back of the respondent, without affording an opportunity of cross examination was no evidence in eyes of law. The statements nowhere stated that the transactions of the respondent with regard to sale and purchase of the shares of the company was an accommodating entry. It would be appropriate to note that second addition on account of undisclosed expenditure of commission paid was consequent upon addition made of long term capital gain.
Tribunal allowed the appeal on appreciation of evidence adduced by respondent and considering that no contrary material produced by the department. No case is made out for interference - Decided against revenue.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1487
TP Adjustment - whether the guide-lines laid down under the Act and Rules are followed while determining the ALP by the Tribunal or not and whether the findings are perverse or not? - HELD THAT:- We agree with Mr. Shah that in the case at hand while passing the order this Court has not refused to scrutinise the Tribunal’s findings on the ALP. This Court has considered the matter on merits and came to the conclusion that no substantial questions of law arise.
We are also informed by Mr. Shah that the two judgments in Aptara Technology (P) Ltd [2018 (4) TMI 404 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and PTC Software (I) (P.) Ltd. [2018 (4) TMI 1002 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] on which the Court had relied upon, have attained finality. In the case of Aptara (Supra), Revenue did not challenge it in the Apex Court and in the case of PTC Software (Supra), the appeal that was filed by Revenue, was withdrawn.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1486
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - ITAT justification in deleting the comparable TCS e-Serve on the basis of the said comparable having a high profitability and brand when TNMM [Transactional Net Margin Method] as an appropriate method is deployed to iron out the differences among the comparables for the sake of a broad comparison - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue of TCS e-Serve being used as a comparable, came up for consideration in PCIT v. B.C. Management Services Pvt. Ltd[2017 (12) TMI 255 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein held Income-tax Appellate Tribunal observed that though there is a close functional similarity between that entity and the assessee, however, there is a close connection between TCS E-serve and TATA Consultancy Service Ltd. which was high brand value ; that distinguished it and marked it out for exclusion. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal recorded that the brand value associated with TCS Consultancy reflected/impacted TCS E- serve profitability in a very positive manner. This inference too in the opinion of the court, cannot be termed as unreasonable. The rationale for exclusion is therefore upheld. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1485
Validity of TP Adjustment - order as barred by limitation, in violation of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and an erroneous order - petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 – TPO committed an error in passing the impugned order without considering or appreciating the relevant statutory provisions as well as the judgment of various High Courts - HELD THAT:- As rightly contended by petitioner, various judgments relied upon the petitioner which were rendered prior to the impugned order have not been considered by the respondent No.1 – TPO before passing the impugned order which also does not take into account the relevant statutory provisions before passing the impugned order.
Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merit/demerits of the rival contentions and in order to enable the first respondent – TPO to pass fresh orders after consideration of the relevant statutory provisions and the judgments of various High Courts referred to supra, deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the first respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1484
Revision u/s 263 - excluding the SBC as non-operating cost while calculating the OP/OC - HELD THAT:- This issue is covered in favour of the assessee in its group company as relied by assessee noted supra in the case of Amazon Development Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (11) TMI 30 - ITAT BANGALORE] and the other case law relied by the ld. AR of the assessee supports the case of the assessee. In the case cited above the similar issue has been decided by the co-ordinate bench in the proceeding initiated by the ld. CIT u/s 263 in favour of the assessee. In view of this, respectfully following the above judgment we hold that this issue is in favour of the assessee.
While calculating OP/OC by the TPO, the depreciation and amortization expenses of Rs. 3 million have been excluded by the TPO from the operating cost - There is difference between revenue from operations and operating cost reported by the assessee and calculated by the TPO and no reconciliation is produced for the difference is produced before us. Therefore, we hold that the ld. CIT(TP) has rightly exercised his jurisdiction on this issue. We further observe from the submissions made by the ld. AR of the assessee even if ld. CIT(TP) has rightly exercised his jurisdiction on this issue, there will be futile exercise because the operating margin of the assessee will be within the +/-3% range as prescribed in the provisions. We find substance in the submission of the ld. AR of the assessee, After including the depreciation and amortization expenses as operating cost, the margin of the assessee still will remain the range of +/- 3% and no addition is called for. Therefore, there is no erroneous and prejudicial order passed by the TPO on this issue. Accordingly, the assessee succeeds on this issue.
Delivery and warranty expenses not part of AMP expenses - After going through the detailed submissions and case law relied by the ld. AR of the assessee these expenditure cannot be regarded as having been incurred for the purpose of development of brand since these are post sales activities and part of sales expenditure. It is also not a case of lack of enquiry.
We hold the delivery cost and warranty expenses are not part of AMP expenditure. Therefore, the ld. CIT(TP) is not justified for revising the order on this issue u/s. 263 of the Act. The assessee succeeds on this issue.
........
|
9911796707
