9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to assessee s entire sales / turnover. The bench, at para 11, has also enumerated the mode of computation of the tolerance range of +5%. Taking a consistent view, we direct the lower authorities to re-compute the TP adjustment, if any, in the light of findings of Tribunal in AY 2007-08. Expenditure on computer software - allowable revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case in AY 2007-08 insofar as the directions on account of AMC for maintenance of software given by the DRP is concerned, the same appears to be very reasonable and no interference is called for. However, with regard to other expenditure, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify this contention of the assessee, in the light of the decision of the Spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentative for assessee, at the time of hearing, submitted that the assessee is not contesting Ground Nos.1,4,5,7 8. Accordingly, all these grounds are treated as not pressed. The remaining ground as agitated before us, reads as under: - The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax - Range 16(3) Mumbai, based on the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel/ erred: - 1. Not Pressed 2. in computing adjustment arising out of arms length pricing on the entire turnover of the assessee instead of restricting the same to the international transactions with the Associate Enterprise. 3. In computing the adjustment arising out of arms length price by not properly ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out by the assessee to be 3.36% as against assessee s 4.80% and therefore, the transactions were submitted to be at Arm s Length Price. 2.3 However, rejecting 4 comparable as selected by the assessee and adding 2 new comparable, Ld. TPO worked out mean PLI of 4 entities to be 5.89% as pitied against assessee s PLI of 4.80%. One of the entities namely M/s Suashish Diamonds Ltd. as selected by the assessee, was rejected on account of Related Party Transactions [RPT] of more than 20%. 2.4 Applying the PLI of 5.89%, ALP sales were computed by Ld. TPO to be ₹ 448.33 Crores as against ₹ 443.71 Crores as reflected by the assessee. Accordingly, TP adjustment of ₹ 4.62 Crores was proposed in TPO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso been submitted that the assessee is not contesting comparable namely M/s Flawless Diamonds Limited as raised in Ground No.6. In the aforesaid background, Ld. AR pleaded for restoration of matter back to the file of Ld. TPO/ Ld. AO. 4.2 The Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], Shri V.K. Agarwal, on the other hand, submitted that computations submitted by the assessee, would require reappreciation by lower authorities. 5. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record. We find that the entity namely M/s Suashish Diamonds Ltd. has been excluded on account of RPT filter. However, keeping in view the submissions made by Ld. AR that this entity has not crossed RPT filte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear. The Ld. DRP directed Ld. AO to verify the bills / vouchers and allow those expenditure as revenue expenditure which were in the nature of AMC / Maintenance and treat the balance to be capital in nature, on which depreciation would be allowable to the assessee. Since the assessee could not file requisite evidences, Ld. AO allowed ₹ 6.01 Lacs as revenue expenditure and disallowed the balance amount of ₹ 7.35 Lacs. The depreciation @60% was allowed on opening WDV of such expenditure. We find that this ground has been adjudicated by the Tribunal in AY 2007-08 in the following manner: - After having carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties and the findings of the DRP, we find that insofar as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
