9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... URT ). Thus we delete the addition made by the authorities below on account of shortfall in premium for issuance of equity shares by the assessee to its holding company has been treated as deemed loan - Decided in favour of assessee Credit of TDS denied - Held that:- Since the assessee has already filed a petition u/s 154 for grant of credit for tax deducted at source. Accordingly, we direct AO to verify the claim of assessee and then pass the appropriate order. - ITA No. 7572/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 25-3-2015 - Vijay Pal Rao (Judicial Member) And D. Karunakara Rao (Accountant Member) For the Petitioner : Nishant Thakkar For the Respondent : S .D. Srivastava ORDER Vijay Pal Rao (Judicial Member) This appeal by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted at source amounting to ₹ 14,739,699; and 3. The Ld. AO erred in levying consequential interest under section 234B and section 234D of the Act. 2. Ground no. 1 is regarding Transfer Pricing adjustment on account of difference in the issue price of equity shares to the holding company and ALP computed by the TPO treated as loan advanced to the AE. The assessee issued 9 crore equity shares of face value of ₹ 10 at par to its holding Company, J.P. Morgan International Finance Limited. The TPO determined the arm s length price of the equity shares issued at ₹ 51.74 per share and treated the difference between the ALP and actual price as a deemed loan advanced by the assessee to its holding company. Consequently, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 49 as under:- 45. Chapter X of the Act is a machinery provision to arrive at the ALP of a transaction between AEs. The substantive charging provisions are found in Sections 4, 5, 15 (Salaries), 22 (Income from house property), 28 (Profits and gains of business), 45 (Capital gain) and 56 (Income from other Sources). Even Income arising from International Transaction between A.E. must satisfy the test of Income under the Act and must find its home in one of the above heads i.e. charging provisions. This the revenue has not been able to show. 46. It was next submitted that the machinery Section of the Act cannot be read dehors charging Section. The Act has to be read as an integrated whole. On the aforesaid submission also, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risdiction of the Revenue on the above aspect. Therefore, we see no reason to examine the issue. 48. Before parting, we may point out that in its written submissions, the revenue has raised an issue of alternative remedy which was not raised at the hearing and contended that there is no patent illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. However, the very fact that at the time of oral submissions, the Revenue supported the conclusions in the impugned order on grounds different from those mentioned therein would itself speak volumes of the patent non-sustainability of the impugned order. The preliminary objection, not raised at the hearing, is, completely devoid of any substance. 49. For all the above rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
