9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Levy of interest u/s. 234A B and levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - AR submitted that 234A interest is not applicable as the assessee filed its return of income within the period of limitation for year under consideration - HELD THAT:- We direct the AO to verify the submission of assessee and to consider the claim in accordance with law. Interest u/s. 234B 271(1)(c) penalty are consequential in nature and do not require adjudication. - IT(TP)A No. 2579/Bang/2019 - - - Dated:- 11-7-2022 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJAY ROTTI REVENUE BY : SHRI SUMER SINGH MEENA ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against the final assessment order dated 23/10/2019 passed by Ld.DCIT, Circle 6(1)(2), Bangalore for A.Y. 2015-16 on following grounds of appeal: The grounds stated hereunder are independent of and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant submits as under: Erroneous transfer pricing adjustments arising from interest on trade receivables 1.1. The Deputy Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd unabsorbed depreciation. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not adjudicating this ground of objection raised by the Appellant before it. 3. Erroneous non-set-off of MAT credit entitlement 3.1. The Ld. AO has erred in law in not setting-off MAT credit entitlement pertaining to earlier AYs. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not adjudicating this ground of objection raised by the Appellant before it. 4. Erroneous non-grant of Foreign Tax Credit 4.1. The Ld. AO has erred in law in not granting Foreign Tax Credit. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not adjudicating this ground of objection raised by the Appellant before it. 5. Erroneous levy of interest under section 234A and 234B 5.1. The Ld. AO has erred in levying interest of INR 96,733 under section 234A of the Act, despite the Appellant furnishing return of income on November 29, 2015 (i.e., within the prescribed due date). The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not adjudicating this ground of objection raised by the Appellant before it. 5.2. The Ld. AO has erred in levying interest of INR 53,20,315 under section 234B of the Act. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not adjudicating this ground of obje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment order, making addition in respect of interest on trade receivables computed at Rs. 23,78,93,911/-. In respect of the disallowance of the professional charges for non-deduction of TDS, the Ld.AO upheld the addition in the hands of the assessee as proposed in the draft assessment order. 2.5 Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the only issue alleged by assessee in the present appeal is in respect of notional interest computed on trade receivables that are due to the assessee. 4. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. We note that the only issue raised by the assessee before this Tribunal is in respect of computation of notional interest on trade receivables. 5. Ground no. 1 1.6 is in respect of interest on trade receivables. 5.1 The Ld.TPO proposed to compute the interest on delayed trade receivables by using weighted average method. 5.2 Assessee was called upon to furnish invoices, the date of receipt and delay in the number of days in such receipts that was due to assessee. Based on the details furnished, the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in case of Orange Business Services India Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 6570/Del/2016 vide its order dated 15.2.2018 has observed that: There may be a delay in collection of monies for supplies made, even beyond the agreed limit, due to a variety of factors which would have to be investigated on a case to case basis. Importantly, the impact this would have on the working capital of the assessee would have to be studied. It went on to hold that, there has to be a proper inquiry by the TPO by analysing the statistics over a period of time to discern a pattern which would indicate that vis- -vis the receivables for the supplies made to an AE, the arrangement reflected an international transaction intended to benefit the AE in some way. Similar matter once again came up for consideration before the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 120 (Del). Following the earlier decision in Kusum Healthcare (supra), it was observed that there are several factors which need to be considered before holding that every receivable is an international transaction and it requires an assessment on the working capital of the assessee. Applyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
