9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal : i. On fact and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer(AO), in an order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144(13) of the Income Tax Act (ITA) for A.Y. 2006-2007, has erred in making a disallowance of Rs. 76,93,979/-. This disallowance as made by the AO is on the basis of a direction contained in the order passed u/s. 144C (5) of the ITA for A.Y. 2006-2007 by the "Dispute Resolution Panel" (DRP), wherein the DRP has erred in upholding the Transfer Pricing adjustment made of Rs. 76,93,976/- by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TDO) in respect of management fees paid by the appellant to its Associated Enterprise (AE)- Hava Group BV Holland. The findings of the DRP in upholding the Transfer Pricing adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rises in the other 19 countries have limited function of marketing and customer support. The assessee company in India manufactures complete tippers on chassis provided by the truck manufactures while in other countries the company supplied hydraulic kits to the vehicle manufacturer or body builders who manufacturer the tippers by using hydraulic kits. 3.2 The assessee has a collaboration agreement with its holding company for technical assistance and provision of know how. As per the agreement the assessee paid royalty calculated at 5% of the costs of production of the total turn over of manufactured goods for technical assistant and provisions of know how. The assessee has also entered into an agreement with the group company namely Hyva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stry, the Learned Senior Counsel for the assessee has submitted that both TPO as well as DRP have proceeded on the premises that no service was rendered by the AE to the assessee against which the management fees was paid. He has invited our attention to the record filed by the assessee before us containing in paper book No. 2 and 3 and submitted that since the authorities below made an addition on the ground that the assessee has not received any service from the AE and therefore, subsequently the assessee has obtained the relevant materials and documents which has been first time filed before this tribunal. However, the said material requires to be examined and verified on the issue whether the assessee has received the services from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the draft assessment order disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim with any documentary evidence. The DRP though taken note of the objections of the assessee that the said amount was disallowed in the preceding year u/s 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of tax at source however, the assessee claimed that the tax has been paid in the subsequent year. Therefore, the DRP directed the Assessing Officer to examine this claim that the TDS has subsequently been deducted out of the remittance made. In the final assessment order the AO rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the expenses pertain to the assessment year under consideration itself which has already been debited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
