9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court has been challenged by the revenue authorities before the Hon ble Supreme Court. The very concept of protective addition is relevant only when an income is to be added in the hands of more than one taxpayer, in a situation in which there is an element of ambiguity as to in whose hands the said income can be rightly brought to tax. That s not the case before us. - the concept of protective assessment , as is known to the income tax law, has no application this case - Additions deleted. Set off of the brought forward business losses - HELD THAT:- Assessee has claimed set off of the loss of ₹ 26,25,85,933 incurred in the assessment year 2012-13 which could not have been set off for the prior years, and the only year followin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Grievance of the assessee, in substance, is twofold- first, against the addition of ₹ 23,83,92,783 made by the Assessing Officer, in respect of arm s length price adjustment for advertising promotion and marketing (AMP) expenses by applying the bright line test (BLT), made on protective basis; and- second, against denial of set off in respect of brought forward business losses to the extent of ₹ 26,25,85,933 by holding that, in view of the additions made by the Assessing Officer to the returned in the preceding assessment years, no part of the business losses, incurred in the preceding years, survives for adjustment in the present assessment year. 3. So far as the protective addition in respect of ALP adjustment of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of the assessee stands revised to NIL, while ₹ 23,83,92,783, following the Bright Line Method, stands confirmed following the DRP order. 5. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 6. Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the material on record, we are unable to see any merits in the impugned ALP adjustment of ₹ 23,83,92,783 on, what has been termed as, protective basis. Learned Departmental Representative has not even disputed that the issue is covered against the revenue authorities by binding judicial precedents, but his worry is about protecting legitimate interests of the revenue. These apprehensions, however, are not really justified. There is no dispute that the application of bright ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned representatives fairly agree that the matter is required to be remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the light of the result of the appellate proceedings in respect of the preceding assessment years in which the related disputed additions have been made. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that, in any event, the assessee has claimed set off of the loss of ₹ 26,25,85,933 incurred in the assessment year 2012-13 which could not have been set off for the prior years, and the only year following the said assessment year is the year before us. It is also pointed out that the ALP adjustment, in respect of AMP expenses by applying the bright line test (BLT), which is now decided in favour of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
