9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of Indenting Commission - HELD THAT:- Similar issue came up for consideration again before the Tribunal in its order for A.Y. 2006-07 [ 2019 (8) TMI 1053 - ITAT PUNE] . Since this appeal came up through the route of the Dispute Resolution Panel in which there was no such categorical finding about the transaction being at arm s length price or not as was there for the A.Y. 2005-06, the Tribunal restored this matter to the file of AO/TPO for a fresh adjudication. However, for the year under consideration, it is observed from TPO s order that the assessee submitted a detailed calculation to the TPO by considering the Material cost and Depreciation cost in the base of costs and demonstrated that the transaction was at the ALP. The TPO di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der to delete the addition. - ITA No.1677/PUN/2011 - - - Dated:- 27-8-2019 - SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by: Shri R. Murlidhar, Advocate Respondent by: Shri M.K. Gautam, CIT-DR ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order dated 30-09-2011 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act ) in relation to the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The assessee has raised the following five additional grounds: Validity of the Order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Income- tax Act, 1961: 1. On the facts and in the circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of the depreciation on the same, in the subsequent years, including AY 2007-08. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, mend, substitute and/or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing additional grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal. 3. The first set of two additional grounds are challenging the validity of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the draft assessment order passed by the AO referred to the initiation of penalty u/s.271(1)(c). It is observed that similar additional grounds were taken up by the assessee for the A.Y. 2006-07 also. Vide order dated 21-08-2019, the Tribunal in I TA No.1470/PUN/2010 has dismissed such additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rring in nature. The Tribunal vide its order dated 22-07-2019 in ITA No.1303/PUN/2010 etc. for the A.Y. 2004-05 has decided it in assessee s favour by deleting the transfer pricing addition on account of Royalty. Similar view has been followed in all the subsequent years up to the year under consideration. The ld. DR could not point out any distinguishing feature in the facts for this year vis- -vis the preceding years. Following the precedent, we direct to delete the transfer pricing addition in respect of Royalty. 8. The next addition assailed in this appeal is against the transfer pricing addition in the international transaction of Indenting Commission. 9. Here again, it is found that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) proposed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been overturned by the Tribunal for earlier years. Thus, it is evident that the facts and circumstances of the instant year are similar to those of the A.Y. 2005-06. Following the precedent, we order to delete the addition. 10. The next ground about capitalization of software expenses was not pressed by the ld. AR by conceding that such expenditure should be treated as capital expenditure on which depreciation should be allowed. It is seen that the AO has done the same, namely, capitalized the expenditure and then allowed depreciation. In view of these facts, this ground is not allowed. 11. The next ground is against capitalization of expenditure on the Premises. Here again, it is found that the facts and circumstances of this gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see s own case for the immediately preceding year, following the same, we uphold the addition, more specifically because of the uncontroverted finding returned by the AO that the entire bills were not produced for verification. This ground, therefore, fails. 14. The last ground of the appeal is against the addition of ₹ 81,54,289/- towards Commission at 7.5%. 15. Here again, it is found that similar issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the assessee s own case for earlier years. In its order for the A.Y. 2006-07, the Tribunal has deleted such disallowance. Following the precedent, we order to delete the addition. 16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27th Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
