9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudication is called for - HELD THAT:- The above contention of the assessee has not been controverted by the Revenue. Further the contention of the assessee of not charging interest on overdue debts from the third parties and not paying any interest to the creditors has also not been controverted by the Revenue. We further find that identical issue arose in assessee s own case in A.Y. 2010-11 [ 2019 (7) TMI 85 - ITAT DELHI ] wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee . No material to show that the decision of the Co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for AY 2010-11 has been set aside/ stayed or over ruled by the higher judicial forum. We further find that the case law relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- on account of difference in arm s length price of the international transactions entered by the assessee with associated enterprises. In view of the TPO order, AO passed draft assessment order u/s 144C r.w.s 143(3) of the I.T. Act vide order dated 02.02.2015 assessing the total income at ₹ 32,06,55,710/-. Later on, the AO vide order dated 10.03.2015 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act assessed the total income at ₹ 32,06,55,710/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO/TPO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 25.01.2016 in Appeal No.70/15- 16/CIT(A)-42 granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us and has raised the following grounds: 1. That the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Naturals (I) (P) Ltd. reported in 276 CTR 445. It is therefore prayed that, adjustment and addition so upheld by the Ld CIT(A) be deleted and appeal of the appellant company be allowed. 4. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that though assessee has raised various grounds but the sole issue for adjudication is with respect to the addition of ₹ 17,97,481/- by bench marking the receivables on transactions of sales/ services of the assessee company by adopting the prime lending rate of SBI plus markup of 300 basis points. 5. The TPO on the examination of the Balance Sheet noticed that there were receivables shown in the balance sheet which according to him implied that the payment for the invoices raised by the assessee was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest rate as per PLR of SBI of 8.69% + 150 basis points and re-compute the net amount of interest receivable after making adjustment in respect of interest payable to the AEs. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us. 6. Before us, Learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the AO and CIT(A) and further submitted that assessee has earned margin in software services of 22.85% as compared to the margin of 12.62% of the comparable companies. In the manufacturing segment Assessee s margin are 9.47% as compared to margin of 6.87% of the comparable companies. He further submitted that the working capital adjusted margin of assessee has already factored in the delay in receivables requiring no further adjustment on accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Assessee. He pointed to the relevant order which is placed in the paper book. He therefore submitted that no addition on account of interest receivable is called for in the present case. 7. Ld DR on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities and submitted that the statement of Ld AR that no interest has been earned is factually incorrect in view of the interest income reflected in the Profit and loss account. Ld AR in the rejoinder submitted that the interest income reflected in the Profit and loss account is on account of interest from bank and it is not on account of interest on receivables. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the materials available on record. The issue in the present appeal is w.r.t. a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The credit period of the comparable companies has been found to be 147 days as against the credit period allowed by the assessee of the 30 days. In view of the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs EKL Appliances Ltd (supra), we are of the opinion that impact of the delayed receivables has already been factored in the working capital adjustment and, therefore, any further adjustment on the outstanding receivables is not required separately in the instant case. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the adjustment made on account of the outstanding receivables. As we have already deleted the addition in question, we are not adjudicating the other arguments of the assessee, as same are rendered only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
