9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing amount/debt received from Associated Enterprise ignoring the fact that TPO has charged interest only on the amount outstanding against the AE by considering the amount outstanding for greater than 365 days with Associated Enterprise for benchmarking the transaction." 2. "The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to assessee without appreciating the fact that the facts in the instant case are distinguishable from the one's in the case of M/s.lndo American Jewellery Ltd." 3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessee's claim that profit u/s.10A is not liable to be included in book profit computed u/s.115JB of the Act and ignoring the amendment by Finance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering the clarification given in para 44 of the Board's Circular 3/2008 regarding amendment in Sec. 115JB by the Finance Act, 2007 which is applicable to the assessee's case in the Assessment Year under consideration," 3. The revenue for the assessment year 2010-2011, has raised the following grounds :- 1. "The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to ssessee in respect of interest charged on outstanding amount/debt received from Associated Enterprise ignoring the fact that TPO has charged interest only on the amount outstanding against the AE by considering the amount outstanding for greater than 365 days with Associated Enterprises for bench marking the transaction. 2. "The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to assessee w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has deleted the addition after observing as under :- "5. I have considered the AO's order as well as appellant AR's submission. Having taken to the relevant provisions of the Act wherein the TPO has made adjustment on the outstanding balance receivable from Associated Enterprises as on 31.03.2009 vide order u/s.92CA dated 22.01.2013 as well as the decision of the jurisdictional Bombay ITAT in the case of Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd vs. ACIT (ITA.No.7354/Mum/2011) dated 30.04.2012, I find that the TPO was not justified in his action in making the aforesaid adjustment. Besides this, I find that similar issue was decided by the Jurisdictional ITAT, Mumbai Benches 'K' Mumbai vide ITA No.5875/MUM/2013 and ITA.No.6221/MUM/2013 wherein the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal passed its order dated 8-8-2014 deleting entire addition on account of interest, the revenue has filed M.A., which was disposed off by the Tribunal on 20-2-2015, wherein the Tribunal observed as under :- "2.2 Thus, it is the case of the Revenue that to the extent it relates to Rs. 9. 70 lacs, since no interest was charged by the assessee from its AE even for 20 days, then international transaction of the assessee to that extent would not be at ALP and, therefore, addition to that extent has been incorrectly deleted. Net receivable amounts by the assessee from its AE was a sum of Rs. 28.27 crores on which, if the interest is calculated @ 7% for 20 days, then the same would come to Rs. 9.70 lacs. The Revenue has submitted the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal in quantum appeal as well as M.A. order dated 20-2-2015 in assessee's own case as well as order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, as discussed by the Tribunal in its order dated 8-8-2014, we modify the order of CIT(A) in deleting entire upward adjustment made on account of interest receivable on delayed realisation of export proceeds from A.E., and restrict the disallowance to Rs. 49,66,277/- as there was delay of 76 days more than the delay in case of credit extended by the assessee to Non-AE. Interest rate has been confirmed for earlier year was US LIBOR rate for debts of 1 year maturity period. Hence, such rate for financial year 2008-09 is 2.83%. Accordingly as in the last year, Libor plus 2% works out to 4.83%. Hence, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal in assessee's own case. The precise observation of the CIT(A) was as under :- 9. I have considered the AO's order as well as the appellant's submission. Having taken note to the same, I find that this issue of the appellant is covered in favour of the appellant by my predecessor CIT(A)'s order in A.Y.2008-09 wherein the appellant's this ground of appeal was allowed by CIT(A). I find that the decision of my predecessor CIT(A) has also been confirmed by the order of the Jurisdictional ITAT, Mumbai Benches 'K' Mumbai vide ITA No.5875/MUM/2013 and ITA.No.6221/MUM/2013. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted herein below: "We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of the materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
