9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, hence, we do not consider it necessary to delve any further into the issue. However the merits of the issue i.e., whether the Transfer Pricing Officer is competent to determine the arm's length price of the Head Office, General and Administrative expenditure at Rs. Nil, is an important legal issue which has to be decided keeping in view the provisions of the Act as well as relevant case laws. Therefore, while making it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issue as raised in this ground, we leave it open for adjudication if the issue arises in assessee s case for any other assessment year in future. With the aforesaid observations, the ground raised is dismissed as infructuous. Levy of interest under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) 57, Mumbai, pertaining to the assessment year 2010 11. 2. The only ground raised by the assessee in the memorandum of appeal reads as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in determining arm's length price of Head Office General Administrative expenses eligible to be claimed u/s 44C of the Act, at nil. The appellant prays that the action of the Hon ble CIT(A) may please be held as bad in law and be deleted. 3 . Brief facts are, the assessee, as stated by the Assessing Officer, is a company incorporated in Cayman Island and is a tax resident of Cyprus. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's length nature of expenditure. Thus, ultimately, the Transfer Pricing Officer determined the arm's length price of the Head Office expenditure allocated to the assessee at Rs. nil and suggested an adjustment to the extent of the expenditure allocated. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that, though, the Transfer Pricing Officer has determined the arm's length price of the Head Office expenditure, at Rs. nil, in respect of which the assessee could have claimed deduction under section 44C of the Act, however, on verification of the computation of income and Profit Loss account he found that the assessee has neither debited such expenditure to its Profit Loss account nor has claimed it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not consider it necessary to delve any further into the issue. However, in our view, the merits of the issue i.e., whether the Transfer Pricing Officer is competent to determine the arm's length price of the Head Office, General and Administrative expenditure at Rs. Nil, is an important legal issue which has to be decided keeping in view the provisions of the Act as well as relevant case laws. Therefore, while making it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issue as raised in this ground, we leave it open for adjudication if the issue arises in assessee s case for any other assessment year in future. With the aforesaid observations, the ground raised is dismissed as infructuous. 7. Besid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 234C of the Act. 11. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, the assessee being a company has to mandatorily make payment of tax electronically. Therefore, on the due date of payment of advance tax on 15th June 2009, the assessee sent a request to the bank for payment of advance tax amounting to ₹ 11 crore which was accepted by the Bank. However, due to some technical problem in Reserve Bank of India payment gateway, the payment could not be processed on 15th June 2009, and it was processed on the next day i.e., 16th June 2009. Thus, it was submitted that the delay of one day in paying the advance tax was not attributable to the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be fastened with the liability of pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax at the request of the assessee. However, the transaction could not be completed due to a technical glitch at RBI s payment gateway. This fact was communicated to the assessee by its banker. In fact, the banker also issued a certificate to this effect. Thus, from the facts on record it is evident, insofar as the assessee is concerned, it had made the payment of advance tax on the due date i.e., 15th June 2009. The transaction relating to the aforesaid payment could not be completed on 15th June 2009, for reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, the delay of one day in making payment of advance tax is not attributable to the assessee. That being the case, levy of interest under section 234C of the Act in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
