9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee for Assessment Year 2012-13, the objection is beyond the scope of the powers of the DRP. Whatever may be the fetters placed on the scope of the powers of the DRP, with due respect, there can be no estoppel against the application / operation of law as laid down by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sabari Enterprises [ 2007 (7) TMI 169 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] . Even if the assessee has voluntarily disallowed this amount, since the same is contrary to the binding decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court (supra), assessee is well within its rights to make a fresh claim in accordance therewith. In this view of the matter, we hereby remand this issue of the assessee s claim for being allowed dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of assessment passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) vide order dated 28.12.2016; pursuant to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Bangalore (DRP) under section 144C(5) of the Act dated 07.11.2016. The relevant Assessment Year is 2012-13. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under:- 2.1 The assessee, a company, engaged in the business of manufacture and trade of various types of inventors, servers and other electric products, filed its return for Assessment Year 2012-13 on 22.08.2012 declaring a loss of ₹ 14,54,37,463/-. The assessee filed a revised return of income on 29.11.2012 declaring a loss of ₹ 11,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Assessment Year 2012-13 has preferred this appeal wherein it has raised the following grounds:- 1. The learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7( I )(2), Bengaluru (hereinafter referred as AO for brevity), learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. (Transfer Pricing) 2(2). Bengaluru (hereinafter referred as TP0- for brevity), and the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel-2(hereinafter referred as DRP for brevity) ( AO-. .1 PO- and DRP collectively referred as lower authorities- for brevity) have erred in passing the order which are bad in law 2. The learned AO has erred in passing the final assessment order without appreciating that he does not have jurisdiction over the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bad in law; d. Computing the TP adjustment at ₹ 5,62,42,416/- without giving the basis of computation of TP adjustment in the final assessment order. GROUNDS (TP - MANUFACTURING SEGMENT) 6. The lower authorities have erred in: a. Rejecting the correct segmental profit and loss statement submitted by the Appellant during the TP assessment proceedings on unjustified grounds; b. Conducting a fresh transfer pricing analysis despite absence of any defects in the transfer pricing analysis submitted by the Appellant; c. Adopting inappropriate filters in the process of selecting comparables; and d. Rejecting K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Grounds 1 to 8 (Transfer Pricing Issues) and 9(b) Corporate Tax 4.1 At the outset of the hearing, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that vide letter dated 21.03.2019, the assessee has sought withdrawal of appeal filed under section 253 of the Act r.w.Rule 44H(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short the Rules ). In this letter; it was submitted that the assessee had filed an application under Article 25 of the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) of the India Japan DTAA in respect of the Transfer Pricing adjustments made in the final order of assessment for Assessment Year 2012-13. It was further submitted that the MAP proceedings have been resolved; and a copy of the intimation to the assessee by the AO in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (298 ITR 141) (Kar). 5.2.1 We have heard the rival contentions in the matter and perused the material on record. In the facts of the case on hand, admittedly the assessee claims that it had inadvertently disallowed employees contribution to PF amounting to ₹ 22,49,827/- in the revised return filed by it for Assessment Year 2012-13. We find that this issue was raised by the assessee before the DRP seeking the allowance of such deduction under section 43B of the Act. The DRP brushed aside the assessee s claim holding that in view of sub section 1 of section 144C of the Act, since the claim does not relate to any variation made by the AO in the income / loss returned by the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-13, the obj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
