9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonable manner. In our opinion, these terms do not give any indication that the AE and the assessee had to share AMP expenses. Secondly, if the AE was benefitted indirectly by the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee, it cannot be held that it had entered into agreement for sharing AMP expenses. We are also of the opinion that Bright Line Method should not have been applied by the TPO. Disallowance of depreciation on building - HELD THAT:- We find that the above issue is covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of the ITAT in assessee s own case for AY 2009-10 [ 2015 (12) TMI 1673 - ITAT MUMBAI ] granted depreciation on plant and machinery and building. Disallowance of payment to doctors - AO disallowed convention expenses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umbai (hereinafter the AO ) passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the Act ). 2. The 1st ground of appeal is general in nature. The 2nd to 27th grounds of appeal are transfer pricing grounds on Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) adjustment. 2.1 We begin with the AMP adjustment. The appellant is an Indian company being a 100% subsidiary of Medtronic International, Hong Kong, which in turn is a subsidiary of Medtronic Inc., a US based global leader in medical technology engaged in development and manufacture of wide range of medical products. The appellant is engaged in marketing and distribution of products of the group companies. The appellant s primary business is to distribute medical device. The Transfer P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus it is stated that AMP expenses incurred by the appellant is not an international transaction. The Ld. counsel further submits that the ITAT in assessee s own case for AY 2010-11 (ITA No. 1600/M/2015) dated 17.01.2018, after analysing the distribution agreement, held that in absence of any agreement for sharing AMP expenses, it cannot be held to be an international transaction. Further, it held that if the AE was benefited indirectly by the AMP expenditure incurred by the appellant, it cannot be held that it had entered into agreement for sharing AMP expenses. Further, relying on the order of the ITAT in its own case for AY 2008-09 (ITA No. 7555/Mum/2012) dated 04.05.2018 and for AY 2011-12 (ITA No. 1246/Mum/2016) dated 02.05.2018, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ACIT (381 ITR 227) (Delhi HC). 2.3 On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that as the Department has filed appeal on the above issue before the Supreme Court and the matter is pending, the present issue be restored to the file of the AO. 2.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. It would be pertinent to refer here to the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case, facts being similar. The ITAT, in appellant s own case for AY 2010-11 (ITA No. 1600/M/2015) dated 17.01.2018 held as under: 3.4.We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the TPO had held that assessee should have been compensated by its AE for the AMP expenditure incurred by it. We have gone through the agreements entered in to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax Act, for the purpose of calculation and grant of depreciation, the concept of block of assets is followed from 1988 and as per the said concept, assets forming part of the same block of assets lose their individual identity and become an inseparable part of the block of asset for the purpose of tax depreciation. Thus, the Ld. counsel relying on the following decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee s own case submits that the claim of depreciation on building be allowed. AY 2003-04 (ITA No. 1245/Ahd/2008), AY 2004-05 (ITA No. 812/Ahd/2008), AY 2008-09 (ITA No. 7555/Mum/2012), AY 2009-10 (ITA No. 2168/Mum/2014), AY 2010-11 (ITA No. 1600/M/2015) and AY 2011-12 (ITA No. 1246/Mum/2016) 3.2 On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the appellant in assessee s own case for AY 2010-11 (ITA No. 1600/Mum/2015) dated 17.01.2018, and for AY 2011-12 (ITA No. 1246/Mum/2016) dated 02.05.2018. 4.2 On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order of the AO. 4.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that the ITAT in assessee s own case for the AY 2010-11, relying on the decision of Max Hospital (WPC 1334/2013) (Del) and PHL Pharma (163 ITD 10) (ITAT Mumbai) held that (i) MCI guidelines are applicable to the professionals i.e. Doctors only and do not govern the other tax entities or individuals other than doctors and (ii) MCI, as a body can formulate policy for Doctors and the appellant is not a practicing professional and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
