9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven by Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Since common issues are urged in these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience. 2. The Ld A.R preferred to take the appeal filed for AY 2010-11 first and he submitted that the decision taken in this year can be conveniently applied to other years also. The Ld A.R further submitted that the assessee has raised many legal issues. He submitted that the assessee has raised two issues on merits in all the years. Accordingly, the bench asked the Ld A.R to advance his arguments on the issues contested on merits. 3. The assessee company is engaged in the business of providing Distance Learning and Education Services. 4. The first commo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the rejoinder, the Ld A.R submitted that the Mumbai bench of Tribunal has upheld the adjustment made @ 0.20% in respect of Corporate Guarantee given in the case of Addl CIT vs. Asian Paints Ltd (2014)(44 taxmann.com 422)(Mumbai- Trib). The Ld A.R also fairly submitted that the Mumbai bench of Tribunal has upheld the adjustment @ 0.50% in the case of Godrej Consumer Products Ltd vs. ACIT (2016)(60 taxmann.com 436). He further submitted that the adjustment of 0.50% made in respect of Corporate guarantee has been upheld by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd (Income tax Appeal No.1165 of 2013 dated 08-05-2015). However, he submitted that, in the instant cases, the adjustments, if any, may be rest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this issue and direct the AO/TPO to make T.P adjustment in respect of Corporate Guarantee @ 0.50% in all the years under consideration. 9. The next common issue urged by the assessee in all the years relate to the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act. The Ld A.R submitted that the AO has mechanically applied provisions of Rule 8D in all the years and accordingly computed the disallowance. He submitted that the interest free funds available with the assessee are more than the value of investments and hence no disallowance out of interest expenditure under rule 8D(2)(ii) is called for. He further submitted that major part of investments consists of investment made by the assessee in its foreign subsidiary and income there from is taxable. Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
