9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1042X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acquired in January, 2013 was amounting to ₹ 481,87,28,153. Assessee claimed depreciation, but it was not allowed by the AO on the ground that valuation report was not furnished, whereas this claim of depreciation was allowed by the AO in the succeeding year i.e., AY 2014-15. We are of the view that once the AO has allowed the claim in the succeeding year, the same should also have been examined in the impugned assessment year. Set aside the order of the AO and restore the matter to the AO to examine the claim of depreciation in the light of valuation report furnished by the assessee, after affording opportunity of being heard to it. TPA - comparable selection criteria - assessee has sought exclusion of 8 comparables on the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified in confirming that the service offered by the appellant were ITeS services, as against the services rendered by the appellant being business support services, on the facts and circumstances of the case. iii. The learned Assessing officer/TPO/DRP were not justified, in not rejecting the comparables selected on the basis of high turnover on the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. The learned Assessing officer/TPO/DRP were not justified in not rejecting the companies selected as the functionality of the companies were different from the business of the appellant, on the facts and circumstances of the case. v. The learned Assessing officer/TPO/DRP were not justified in relying on data which was not available during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disallowance of ₹ 13,01,30,063/- in respect of claim of depreciation acquired and utilised for the purpose of business on Logo and corporate brands on the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. The learned Assessing officer/DRP were not justified in making a disallowance of ₹ 6,27,50,000/- in respect of claim of depreciation on goodwill acquired and utilised for the purpose of business on the facts and circumstances of the case. v. The learned Assessing officer/DRP were not justified in making a disallowance of ₹ 6,75,00,000/- in respect of claim of depreciation on distribution contracts and relationships (franchisee) acquired and utilised for the purpose of business on the facts and circumstances of the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the receipt of approval /consent from the regulatory authorities who have verified and vetted the transaction and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Assessing officer/DRP were not justified in law in denying Depreciation at the prescribed rates in respect of the intangibles, which were capitalised on the premise that the valuation of the same were high, when it is settled law that depreciation cannot be denied to the appellant, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The learned Assessing officer/DRP were not justified in law in ignoring the fact that the appellant has acquired the intangibles after following the well business practices and upon receiving du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been levied are not discernable from the order and hence deserves to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete or substitute any or all of the grounds and to file a paper book at the time of hearing the appeal. 17. In view of the above and other grounds that may be taken at the time of the hearing the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of justice and equity. 2. During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention with regard to disallowance on the point of depreciation with the submission that the assessee has furnished the valuation report before the AO, but the AO did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear i.e., AY 2014-15. In the light of these facts, we are of the view that once the AO has allowed the claim in the succeeding year, the same should also have been examined in the impugned assessment year. We accordingly set aside the order of the AO and restore the matter to the AO to examine the claim of depreciation in the light of valuation report furnished by the assessee, after affording opportunity of being heard to it. 5. With regard to the TP issues, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has sought exclusion of 8 comparables on the ground of turnover filter and functional dissimilarity. The turnover filter was not considered to be a good filter, in the light of the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
