Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (10) TMI 536

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ct') after considering the adjustments proposed by the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') in his order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act and thereby approved by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP'). Each of the ground is referred to separately, which may kindly be considered independent of each other. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Transfer Pricing Adjustment: 1. The A.O./DRP has erred in confirming the order passed u/s 92CA (3) of the Act making an addition of Rs.13,904,365 to the total income of the appellant on account of adjustment in the arm's length price of the international transaction entered by the appellant with its associated enterprises. 2. the DRP has erred in concurring with findings .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . the TPO/A.O. has erred in not providing the benefit of the arm's length range as provided under proviso to Section 92C of the Act for purposes of computing the arm's length price under Section 92F of the Act. Depreciation on Computer accessories and peripherals: 10. the A.O. has erred in interpreting the observations of DRP by applying a tax depreciation rate of 15 percent on computer peripherals and software capitalized by the assessee (which can only work with the aid of computers), without appreciating that the DRP has directed that tax depreciation should be allowed on such computer peripherals at the rate of 60 percent." 2. The Registry reports that there is a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal. In the application filed by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appeal. The delay, therefore, is neither deliberate nor intentional. Moreover, the appeal being the appeal of the assessee itself, the assessee cannot be said to stand to gain anything by filing the appeal after such a delay of 53 days. 5. In these circumstances, the delay of 53 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 6. Apropos the merits of the case, it is seen that the DRP has disposed of the matter by passing the following short order:- " The assessee has filed objections on 29.12.2009 and the case was fixed by DRP for 6th May 2010. Before DRP case was represented by CA Sh. Anuj Khorana. The DRP, having considered their arguments and material on record, decides matter as under: 2. Arm's Length Price u/s 92CA (3): A.O/TPO made a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he view that the reasons given by the TPO are sound and sustainable. Therefore no interference is required in the order of the TPO/A.O. 3. Excess depreciation on computer accessories and peripherals: The A.O. disallowed excess depreciation of Rs.1,26,784/- by restricting the claim of depreciation on computer peripherals @ 15% as against the claim of the assessee @ 6%. Before DRP ARs have argued that computer peripheral are part and parcel of computer and depreciation allowable on these assets is @ 60%. We have gone through the submissions on this point and considered the arguments of the ARs. Accordingly A.O. is being directed to allow depreciation @ 60% on computer peripherals which can work only with the aid of computers. Any claim of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . We have heard both the parties and have perused the material on record. A perusal of the DRP order shows that it is a short order passed in general terms on both the issues involved, i.e., arm's length price u/s 92CA(3) of the Act and excess depreciation on computer accessories and peripherals. The objections raised by the assessee before the ld. DRP have not been discussed in detail. 10. In "Vodafon Essar Limited" (supra), it has been held that the DRP is a quasi judicial authority and while dealing with the case u/s 144C of the Act, the DRP is under an obligation to assign cogent and germane reasons in its order, so as to facilitate appreciation before the superior fora. "Vodafon Essar Limited" (supra) has been followed in "American Ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates