9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there cannot be any occasion to make disallowance under section 14A. This was so held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd (2009 (8) TMI 220 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ) - Thus addition deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee Deduction u/s. 80IB(8A) allowed. Disallowance of expenses on MS Office licence - Held that:- The amount paid is only an annual licence fees for use of software, the expenses so incurred is required to be treated as revenue expenditure. No material has been brought on record to demolish, or even dispute, this finding of fact. In view of these discussions, and bearing in mind entirety of the case, we approve the order of the CIT(A) on this point as well. - I.T.A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Income Tax Range-2, Delhi reported in [2014] 43 taxmann.com 150 (Delhi - Trib.); 1.3 erred in observing that commercial expediency, business motives or business strategy are not included in the factors for judging the comparability of the transaction; 1.4 erred in not appreciating that the Appellant is not engaged in the business of providing corporate guarantees and that the corporate guarantee commission charged by the banks (1.75%) was only reimbursed by the subsidiaries to the Appellant and therefore the additional guarantee commission imputed by the learned AO/TPO should have been deleted; 1.5 erred in rejecting the determination of ALP made by the Appellant without satisfying the provisions of section 92C(3) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred in not appreciating the decision of the cases cited by the Appellant. 2.6 erred in relying on the decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO [121 ITD 318(SB)] GROUND NO. 3: NOT GRANTING CREDIT OF ADVANCE TAXES PAID BY THE APPELLANT 3.1 erred in not granting credit for advance taxes paid by the Appellant of ₹ 6,000,000 for AY 2010-11. 3. As far as first ground of appeal, i.e. against ALP adjustment of ₹ 1,13,400 in respect of the issuance of corporate guarantees is concerned, learned representatives fairly agree that whatever we decide for the assessment year 2009-10 will apply mutatis mutandis for this assessment year as well. 4. Vide our order of even date, which is deemed to be attached and forming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee is aggrieved of the Assessing Officer not giving credit of ₹ 60 lakhs paid as advance tax. Learned counsel, however, accepts that he has moved a petition under section 154 which is pending before the Assessing Officer. As the matter is still pending before the AO, it is not for us to interfere at this stage. 10. Ground no. 3 is thus dismissed as infructuous. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. 12. Grievances raised by the Assessing Officer are as follows: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP was justified in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction of ₹ 10,03,42,966/- under section 80IB(8A) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nches in assessee s own case for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09. Copies of these decisions were placed before us at pages 275-297 of the paperbook. 14. In view of the above discussions, and respectfully following the coordinate benches, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on these aspects and decline to interfere in the matter. 15. Ground no. 1 and 2 are thus dismissed. 16. As regards ground no. 3 above, we have noted that while the Assessing Officer has disallowed the expenses as even on MS Office licence, the assessee has claimed depreciation and that software is a depreciable asset, the DRP has held the software to be revenue expenditure on the basis of a categorical finding that these amounts represent annual licence fee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
