9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that no such claim was raised in the return filed and without filing revised return, such claim would not be sustainable. In appeal, CIT(A) in relation to this ground for rejection, also pressed the ground of the expenditure being in relation to inhouse R&D facility approved by DSIR. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd.v. CIT [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] would not prevent examination of a claim which was based on material already existed on record. The Tribunal noted that such material already existed. We are in agreement with this view of the Tribunal. Tribunal has not opined on the correctness of the findings of the CIT(A) regarding the expenditure in que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f interest on loan to Sun Pharma Global Inc (AE) at average London Inter Bank Offer Rate (LIBOR) Plus 3.95% which included foreign exchange risk of 1%? (2) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in setting aside the finding of the CIT(A) and directing the Assessing Officer to delete the transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 17.32 crores made by it on account of interest on 0% OFCDs at average 06 months London Inter Bank Offer Rate (LIBOR) of 2.69% + spread over LIBOR of 3.95% totaling to 6.64% without appreciating that the Assessing Officer had computed Arm's Length Price in accordance with the provision of section 92C of the Act? (3) Whether on the facts and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of ₹ 6.81 Cr. on clinical trials, patent, trade mark registration charges made by the A.O., without appreciating the facts discussed in the orders of the CIT(A) and the AO and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd.284 ITR 323 ? (7) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessee's claim of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act in relation to the expenditure on trade mark charges and overseas product registration charges ? (8) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of R D expenses incurr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he expenditure being in relation to inhouse R D facility approved by DSIR. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd.v. CIT reported in 2006 284 ITR 323 SC would not prevent examination of a claim which was based on material already existed on record. The Tribunal noted that such material already existed. We are in agreement with this view of the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has not opined on the correctness of the findings of the CIT(A) regarding the expenditure in question being in relation to establishment of R D facilities approved by DSIR. To this limited extent, such question would be examined. 3. We notice that the Revenue has suggested following additional questions: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
