9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he final assessment order itself. Notwithstanding the above position, AR candidly admitted before the Tribunal that, on the assessee writing to the DRP about non-communication of the direction, the DRP responded by mentioning that direction dated 11-03-2021 was promptly e-mailed to the assessee on that very date itself. No adverse contrary evidence has been brought to our notice on behalf of the assessee. Under such circumstances, we are satisfied that this ground is devoid of merit and hence deserves the fate of dismissal. We order accordingly. TP addition in the international transaction of `Payment of Royalty for use of technology - HELD THAT:- Following the view taken by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2015- 16, we approve the segregation of payment of Royalty from other international transactions under the Manufacturing segment and send the matter to the DRP for disposing of the assessee s objections on the further segregation of Royalty payment on exports and domestic sales and the consequential transfer pricing adjustment in respect of export sales to the AEs. Non-granting of deduction u/s.80G - HELD THAT:- AO did not dispute the deduction and adopted the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he final assessment order due to non-service of the Dispute Resolution Panel s (DRP) directions. Referring to Rule 11 of Income-tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009, which provides for the communication of the direction also to the eligible assessee, the ld. AR contended that the directions given by the DRP u/s.144C(5) was not served on the assessee. The final assessment order passed in such circumstances was thus claimed to be vitiated. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that the direction was properly served on the assessee, which was clear from the DIN. 4. After considering the rival submissions and going through the relevant material on record, it is seen that section 144C(5) of the Act states that: `The Dispute Resolution Panel shall, in a case where any objection is received under sub-section (2), issue such directions, as it thinks fit, for the guidance of the Assessing Officer to enable him to complete the assessment. On going through the prescription of sub-section (5) of section 144C, it is manifest that the direction is for the guidance of the AO for enabling him to complete the assessment. Such a direction is issued, in terms of sub-section (6), by the DRP aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al requirement put in place by delegated legislation, without any corresponding provision in the enactment. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that non-service of the direction of the DRP to the assessee would vitiate the final assessment order itself. 5. Notwithstanding the above position, the ld. AR candidly admitted before the Tribunal that, on the assessee writing to the DRP about non-communication of the direction, the DRP responded by mentioning that direction dated 11-03-2021 was promptly e-mailed to the assessee on that very date itself. No adverse contrary evidence has been brought to our notice on behalf of the assessee. Under such circumstances, we are satisfied that this ground is devoid of merit and hence deserves the fate of dismissal. We order accordingly. 6. Ground nos. 2 to 5 of the appeal are against the transfer pricing addition of Rs.12.35crore in the international transaction of `Payment of Royalty for use of technology . The facts of this issue are that the assessee paid Royalty to its foreign-based Associated Enterprise (AE), which was clubbed with other international transactions under the Manufacturing Segment for determining the Arm s Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the directions given by the Tribunal in its order for the A.Y. 2012-13. 10. Ground no.7 against the non-granting of deduction of Education Cess and Secondary higher education cess is again similar to that of the A.Y. 2015-16, which has been dismissed by the Tribunal. Following the precedent, we decide this issue against the assessee. 11. Ground no.8 is against non-granting of deduction u/s.80G amounting to Rs.6.00 crore. The facts anent to this issue are that the assessee claimed deduction u/s.80G for a sum of Rs.6.00 crore in the computation of income. The AO did not dispute the deduction and adopted the total income offered by the assessee (after deduction u/s.80G) for making certain disallowances and computed the total income accordingly. This was done in the draft as well as the final assessment orders. However, in the Computation sheet, the AO omitted to grant the deduction of Rs.6.00 crore, as is apparent from column no.12 showing the figure of zero against the total deduction against Chapter VI-A. Under such circumstances, we direct the AO to verify the assessee s contention and allow deduction of Rs.6.00 crore, if not earlier allowed, after due opportunity of hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
