9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds which are forming part of subsequent assessment years will be specially dealt with. GROUND NO.1 3. Ground No.1 being general in nature, needs no specific adjudication. GROUND NOS. 2 TO 4(D) 4. Ground Nos.2 to 4(d) for the A.Y 2011-12 provides as under: The ld.AR for the assessee has drawn our attention to the order passed by the TPO where the profile of the assessee was mentioned as under : "Zuari Cements Ltd., is engaged in the business of production and sale of Portland cement which is used in commercial, industrial and residential construction activities. The company manufactures Blended Cement, Portland Cement and PRIMO concrete cements. The company was a JV between Zuari Industries Ltd. and ClimentFrancais SA and existed as JV until 31st May 2006. Pursuant to CF's acquisition of 50% stake held by ZIL, the company became a wholly owned subsidiary of CF, effective 31st May, 2006. The ultimate holding company is Itlacemntis p.a. During the year ended 31sst December 2007, pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, Sri Vishnu Cement Ltd., was merged with ZCL with effect from 1st January, 2007. 5. During the year under consideration, the assessee as per Form 3CEB entered into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et, the ld.AR for the assessee has drawn our attention to the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 wherein the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal considering the nature of the assessment had held as under : "4. We next note with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the assessee's first and foremost argument in principle is qua aggregation of the foregoing transactions followed by adoption of the transactional net margin method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method "MAM"; which in turn, stands declined in the learned lower authorities' respective orders by taking comparable uncontrolled price "CUP" method. It further transpires from a perusal of the case file that neither of the foregoing twin issues require any detailed adjudication as well since we are dealing with consequential second round of remand proceedings wherein the learned co-ordinate bench's order dt.17.04.2015 in assessee's appeal itself had rejected the Revenue's corresponding arguments as under : " Transfer Pricing Issues: 7. Assessee being a wholly owned subsidiary of a foreign company, has various transactions with its AEs which were reported as the interna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and other service fee. This payment was paid on an agreement dt.02-08-2000 for getting technical know-how for a period of three calendar years from that effect date. As per renewal of clause at 12.2 it is mentioned that agreement was automatically be renewed subject to Government/Statutory approval for a period of one calendar year at a time in support of the transaction. Assessee has furnished a copy of agreement dt.06-06-2007 effective from 01-01-2007 for payment of royalty @ 2% on sales made to outside parties and 1% on sale to group companies. Even though assessee justified the payment, Ld.TPO however, considered that there is no addition of new technical know-how and compared with financial results of Sri Vishnu Cements Ltd., under the CUP method, to hold that there is no justification for payment of royalty. Accordingly he came to the conclusion that there is no need to pay any amount. Not only that, he also compared some external comparables and came to the conclusion that average pay out on account of technical services by those comparable companies was at 0.91% of net sales. Therefore, based on these two internal and external CUP analysis, TPO determined the payable royal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessee's objections were rejected and the above amounts were disallowed. Another disallowance made by the AO was with reference to reimbursement of expenses under various heads totaling to Rs.51,72,995/-. Thus, in all, an amount of Rs.99,64,85,214/- was treated as adjustment u/s. 92CA. Assessee filed various objections before the DRP but more or less concurred with TPO vide its order dt.25- 11-2013. Assessee is aggrieved. 10. Assessee's objections are multi-fold. Ground No.1 & 2 are general in nature. Ground No.3 & 4, is the method adopted by the TPO and Ground No.5 to 12 are on various disallowances made by the TPO out of various payments made to AE. Each ground has sub grounds which are more or less in the form of submissions. 11. Ld.AR submitted that TPO erred in rejecting the transfer pricing documentation as well as TNMM as most appropriate method. It was the objection that there is no publicly available information on prices charged in independent transactions which are similar or identical in nature that reflects the characteristics of the services provided by the AEs to the assessee. It was further submitted that neither assessee nor AEs provide similar servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... five year period and increase in customer base in the five years and furnished the copies of evidences furnished to the TPO, in support of the submissions. It was further submitted that a publicly available information analysis was undertaken by assessee on the rate of royalty being charged by licensor to a licensee and that analysis came to the range of 1.93%. Therefore, the payment made by ZCL @ 1% on sale was to be considered as arm's length and TPO's determination at NIL cannot be supported, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. EKL Appliances Ltd., 11.1 Coming to the alleged transfer of economic value of Zuari trade mark to Italcementi Group trade mark, it was contended that there was no migration of economic value as the Zuari brand was owned by the company and is being used in all the sales. It was further contended that AE has not used 'Zuari' brand anywhere in the world for its operations to get any benefit as alleged by the TPO. Further, it was contended that Italcementi Group trade mark was being used from AY.2006-07 onwards and therefore, AO was wrong in taking the market expenses after that period also. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;s comparison on transactions of assessee subsidiary company much prior to the year under consideration cannot be justified. Therefore, on that basis itself, the comparison cannot be considered as an internal CUP. Moreover, the need for not charging royalty from SVCL was also explained as the subsidiary company was a sick company and in the process of reviving the company, assessee has not charged any royalty to its subsidiary company. Therefore, on FAR analysis, SVSL's past record with that of present transactions of assessee-company is not correct. Then, coming to external comparables, we were surprised to note that the TPO considered the technical fee payments without analyzing the nature of the payments. In some cases, it is royalty for acquiring the lime stone from Govt., which is not a 'royalty' for getting the technology from foreign AE. There is foreign exchange expenditure also considered as 'technical know-how fee'. A detailed objections of the assessee were not even considered or discussed either by the TPO or by the DRP. Therefore, on the basis of an external CUP ALP of 0.91% itself is not correct. Therefore, the entire exercise undertaken by the TPO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the TP issues are therefore set aside and the entire issue on TP analysis is restored to the file of AO for fresh consideration. The grounds raised are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes." 5. The Revenue vehemently contended that the learned lower authorities have rightly adopted a direct method i.e., CUP which carries precedence over all other indirect methods; including TNMM, as per Serdia Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT (2011) 44 SOT 391 (Mum). We find no reason to accept the Revenue's instant argument more particularly in view of the fact that this is second round of consequential proceedings wherein the earlier learned co-ordinate bench had already rejected the very contentions seeking to decline both aggregation as well as TNMM; as the case may be (supra). 6. The Revenue's next vehement contention before us is that the assessee had not even furnished the relevant details having adopted aggregation as well as TNMM method in the consequential proceedings.We find no substance in the Revenue's instant last argument as well since this is once again a second round of assessment wherein no such objections had been put forth from the departmental side in the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch is not a 'royalty' for getting the technology from foreign AE. There is foreign exchange expenditure also considered as 'technical know- how fee'. A detailed objections of the assessee were not even considered or discussed either by the TPO or by the DRP. Therefore, on the basis of an external CUP ALP of 0.91% itself is not correct. Therefore, the entire exercise undertaken by the TPO on this issue is erroneous and cannot be justified. 14. Leave alone that amount, even the sub license fee for the use of trade mark is also faulty. Under the guise of TPO provisions, the TPO cannot determine the ALP at NIL as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. EKL Applicances Ltd., (supra). Therefore, rejecting the entire payment without there being any analysis on the CUP method cannot be accepted. In the guise of analyzing the transactions in the CUP method, the TPO has not brought any evidence on record to reject the 1% payment made to Italcementi Group. Moreover, while determining the price at NIL on the issue, the TPO surprisingly holds that assessee has transferred its 'Zuari Brand' to 'Italcementi Group'. We are unable to underst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra). 6. The Revenue's next vehement contention before us is that the assessee had not even furnished the relevant details having adopted aggregation as well as TNMM method in the consequential proceedings. We find no substance in the Revenue's instant last argument as well since this is once again a second round of assessment wherein no such objections had been put forth from the departmental side in the former round. Be that as it may, we therefore accept the assessee's contentions seeking to imply "aggregation" as well as TNMM method and leave it open for the "TPO" to finalize the consequential computation as per law. We further make it clear that it shall be very much open for the assessee to file on record all the necessary details pertaining to the comparable(s) list submitted in "TNMM" in the consequential computation. Ordered accordingly." 12. On the basis of the above, it was submitted by the ld.AR that since the issue has been finally decided by the Tribunal on the identical facts in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 in favour of the assessee, therefore, the same principle is applied and decided in favour of the assessee by holding that the method ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... work out the international transactions by applying TNMM as most appropriate method and determine the ALP. Accordingly, the grounds 2 to 4(d) raised by the assessee are allowed for A.Y. 2011-12. 18. Having decided the issue for A.Y. 2011-12, we would like to mention that the international transactions mentioned by the TPO for A.Y. 2012-13 to the following effect : Name of AE Nature of transaction Amount (INR) Ciment Francais SA Technical know-how and research and other fee 13,51,55,686 Ciment Francais SA Sub-license trademark fee For use of Trademark 6,59,49,226 Inter bulk Trading SA Sale of Clinker 9,32,50,303 Italcementi Fabbriche Riunite Cemento SpA Procurement services fee paid 72,27,381 Bravo Solutions SpA E-Procurement services fee paid Consultancy 88,18,278 CTG SpA Consultancy services fee paid 8,26,52,781 Ciment Francais SA Reimbursement of expenses paid 86,61,340 Bravo Solutions SpA Reimbursement of expenses paid 8,06,176 Italacementi Fabbriche Riunite Cemento SpA Reimbursement of expenses paid 18,61,405 Climent Francais SA Reimbursement of expenses received 23,41,868 Italacementi Fabbriche Riunite Cemento SpA Reimbursement of expenses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to the draft assessment order dt.31.03.2015 wherein at Page 3, the Assessing Officer has mentioned as under : "The assessee debited to Profit and Loss Account an amount of Rs.9,56,82,000/- towards cash discounts. The assessee has not filed any proof in respect of discounts given and in view of the same, the assessee's claim is disallowed." Feeling aggrieved by the draft assessment order dt.31.03.2015, assessee had filed objections before the DRP and the DRP dealt with the issue at Pages 32, 33 and 34 to the following effect. "3. Other than TP adjustments. 3.1 Objection No.11 - Disallowance of Cash Discount The learned AO has erred in disallowing cash discount amounting to Rs. 9,56,82,000. (i) The learned AO has erred in not accepting the Company's plea that the said cash discounts have been given to the customers to encourage early realization of debt, to improve working capital cycle and to avoid bad debts. (ill) The learned AO has erred in disregarding the fact that this is a normal business practice in cement industry and has direct nexus to the business, (iv) The learned AO has erred in holding that the Assessee has not maintained/produced concrete or pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to support such cash discounts, in such circumstances, we are of the view that the A.O. was justified in disallowing such claim as the assessce lies to submit the evidences that such expenses have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business carried on during the year, for allowing deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. The objection is accordingly rejected." 21. As there was no evidence filed by the assessee to show that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business carried out during the year under consideration, the DRP has rejected the objections raised by the assessee. 22. The Assessing Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the DRP has disallowed the cash discount sought by the assessee. Aggrieved with the directions of DRP, assessee is now before us. 23. Before us, the assessee has submitted the following written submissions : "The Appellant gives cash discounts to the customers to encourage early realization which in tum improves the working capital cycle and reduces the exposure of bad debts. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Appellant submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .03.2015 and thereafter, the DRP has issued directions on 29.12.2015 and the final assessment order was passed on 25.02.2016 and thereafter, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us dt.23.05.2016. After filing of the appeal before this tribunal, the assessee filed the application for admission of the additional documents only in the year 2018. In our view, sufficient opportunities were given by the lower authorities however despite grant of opportunities, the assessee had failed to file any document/claim before the lower authorities, no for the first time the assessee had filed the document and sought to claim the deduction on account of cash discount. In our view such it plea at belated stage cannot be accepted more particularly when the assessee is a company and is run by the professionals and also advised by the professionals. We may draw support from the decision of the High Court in the case of A.K. Babu Khan [1976] 102 ITR 757 (AP), wherein the High Court had held as under:- "Mr. Habeeb Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the legal representative of the deceased-assessee, contended that the Tribunal has not considered the scope and effect of the words "or for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receive additional evidence is to be exercised only when any point is required to be cleared up in the interests of justice. This power given to the Tribunal has to be exercised cautiously and sparingly in order to advance the interests of justice. Rule 29 is not intended to allow an assessee who has been unsuccessful throughout to patch up the weak parts of his case or to fill up omissions. It is well settled that a party guilty of remissness and gross negligence as in this case is not entitled to indulgence being shown to adduce additional evidence. The assessee had ample opportunities and year after year, he was given opportunities to produce material so that assessment could be made on a consideration of the material placed by him. Merely for the reason that the legal representative of the deceased-assessee has come on record at the stage of second appeal before the Tribunal, it will not entitle him to say that he should be afforded sufficient opportunity to dispute the assessments made by the Wealth-tax Officer. He cannot put himself in a better position than the assessee himself. The words "for any other substantial cause" have been clearly held to refer to the requirement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld.AR has submitted that a separate application dated 9.5.2018 was filed for the purposes of admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The assessee has given the reasons for not filing the said document before the lower authorities and had submitted that this additional document be permitted to be file on record. As noted hereinabove the assessee was negligent in not following the claim before the lower authorities by seeking deduction on account of cash discount either before the AO or before the DRP and also failed to file any documentary evidence in support thereof before lower authorities . Records shows that DRP had passed directions on 25/11/2013 and Assessing Officer passed order on 30.1.2014 for Assessment Year -2009-10, however despited that nothing was done for the current assessment year by the assessee by way of bringing on record the document of cash discount before the lower authorities. Admittedly assessee had filed the application for admission of additional document on 9/5/ 2018 after passage of two years from the date of institution of the present appeal, therefore in our view the assessee was not able to make out a case for admission of the additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oodwill of Rs.16,60,91,410/- by filing a letter dt.05.02.2015 before the Assessing Officer request for allowance of depreciation on goodwill. Before the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel it was submitted that in assessee's own case for Asst. Year 2010-11 the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel has directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim for depreciation on goodwill and as such depreciation on goodwill should be allowed for the year under consideration. This was the additional ground. The Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel has directed the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation in accordance with the direction issued by the DRP in Asst. Year 2010-11, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In this connection, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel in its order at para no. 18.10 for Asst. Year 2010-11 has 'observed as under: "The Assessing Officer is therefore directed to arrive at the correct valuation of goodwill in the light of the judgment of DCIT Vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. (Supra) and if the fair value of assets of the 'SVCL' is less that the consideration of amalgamation, the difference between the two should be considered as the amount incurred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... require examination in AY.2007-08. In AY.2009-10, if a depreciation was allowed on an asset which is in the block of assets in earlier year, only consequential depreciation can be allowed. Since assessee is claiming fresh depreciation on the goodwill, which arose in AY.2007-08, we cannot allow the ground in this assessment year. As rightly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd., [289 ITR 26 (SC)], additional ground cannot be considered, in the absence of any facts on record. 15.3 In view of this, since the issue did not arise in the year under consideration and the facts pertaining to the quantification of the claim are not on record, we cannot entertain the additional ground, just because law on this was settled on legal principles. If at all assessee's claim to depreciation was allowed in AY.2007-08, then, assessee can claim consequential depreciation in this assessment year, before the AO, the additional ground is accordingly rejected." 35. It was submitted by the ld.DR that no direction was given by the Tribunal in the 2nd order dt.24.09.2016 for A.Y. 2009-10. It was submitted that even the M.A. filed against the first order dt.12.08.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espectfully submitted that the said amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 are applicable only from 01.04.2021 and have no retrospective application. Hence, the amendments do not in any way restrict or effect the allowability of the claim of depreciation on goodwill in the subject assessment years (i.e, AY 2011-12 to AY 2014-15)." 37. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the scheme of amalgamation was approved by the hon'ble High Court of A.P., and the assessee had filed valuation report before the Assessing Officer as mentioned by the assessee. However, the valuation report, which was filed by the assessee was required to be considered with respect to computation of valuation of the goodwill for the A.Y. 2007-08 i.e year of acquisition. However, it was informed to us that as the issue is pending for adjudication before the lower authorities and the same has not attained finality. 38. In the light of the above, we deem it appropriate to remand back this issue to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction that if the Assessing Officer on consideration of the evidences filed on record for A.Y. 2007-0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reproduced below : "We refer to the captioned objection for the AY 2011-12 which was filed on May 5, 2015. The Assessee would like to file additional ground of objection with respect to the following: a) Objection No 1.29: Claim of balance 50% of the additional depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the subsequent year. b) Objection No. 1.30: Claim of provision for site restoration fund. c) Objection No. 1.31: Claim for prevision for obsolescence of spares. d) Objection No. 1.32 : Claim for Community development expenses e) Objection No. 1.33 : Claim for giveaways f) Objection No. 1.34 : Claim towards environment protection expenses. We request the Hon'ble DRP member to please take the above as an integral part of the captioned objection filed on May 5, 2015." 43. The DRP had passed an order on 02.12.2015. However, in the directions issued by the DRP, there was no adjudication in respect of these additional grounds raised by the assessee and the DRP in respect of ground No.11 has issued a direction to the AO to verify the computation of income filed along with revised return of income and that if it is found that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion is as to whether the Dispute Resolution Panel could have directed the Assessing Officer to entertain the claim of the assessee that sales Tax remission received by it is capital receipt not chargeable to Tax when the said claim was not made by filing a revised return of income before the Assessing Officer but only by filing a computation of income before the Assessing Officer. 55. We are of the view that there is no merit in ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue. The Dispute Resolution Panel as a first appellate authority has the power to entertain a new claim even in the absence of a revised return of income. The Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) has clarified that "the decision was restricted to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return, and did not impinge on the power of the Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961". This has been interpreted in several judicial pronouncements as applicable even to the first appellate authorities. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 172 Taxman 258/306 ITR 42 (Delhi) has held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny forum as provided and thereafter, the final assessment order shall be passed by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the ground Nos. 11 to 15 are partly allowed. GROUND NOS.16 AND 17 50. At the outset, ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee is not pressing ground Nos. 16 and 17 and hence, requested to dismiss the grounds as not pressed. 51. In view of the submission of ld.AR, the grounds 16 and 17 are dismissed as not pressed. GROUND NO.18 52. Ground No.18 is general in nature and hence, does not require any adjudication. 53. IN THE RESULT, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.616/Hyd/2018 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA NO.254/HYD/2017 54. Now, we will deal with appeal in ITA No.254/Hyd/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13. 55. The assessee had raised as many as 18 grounds in this appeal and also raised additional grounds from 19 to 24, which are more or less similar to the lead appeal ITA 616/Hyd/2016 for A.Y.2011-12. GROUND NOS.1 TO 7 AND 10 56. The ground nos. 1 to 7 and 10 of this appeal pertain to the transfer pricing adjustments and determination of most appropriate method for determining ALP. As we have already held in the lead appeal i.e. ITA 616/Hyd/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed i.e. salary cost of Rs.23,41,868/- to CF by deputing the personnel of the taxpayer to overseas location is computed as under : Arm's length compensation of services rendered by employees of ZCL in France (23,41,868*133.37%) 31,23,350 Price received by ZCL from AE 23,41,868 Adjustment u/s. 92CA 7,81,482 Thus, the arm's length price of the taxpayer is Rs.31,23,350/- and the shortfall of Rs.7,81,482/- is treated as adjustment u/s 92CA of I.T. Act and the total income of the taxpayer will be enhanced accordingly, u/s 92CA(3) of the I.T. Act." 60. Feeling aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee has preferred proceedings before DRP and the DRP in his directions at Page 59 of the Paper Book has decided the issue against the assessee observing as under : "2.9 Grounds of Objection No 11: Recovery of salary expense is at arm's length. Ground No. 1: That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TPO") erred in not following the Hon'ble ITAT ruling in the assessee's own case for the AY 2009-10 & Hon'ble DRP's direction in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12. Ground No. 2: That on the facts & c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details of expenses recovered by the assessee from CF have been tabulated here-in-under:- Sl.No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1 Salary Expenses 14,56,777 2 Stay & Travel Expenses 8,85,091 Total 23,41,868 Having considered examined the submissions, we have perused the record to observe that the TPO has examined this issue in paragraph 8.5 of his order dated 29th January, 2016 and determined the arm's length compensation for the services received as Rs.31,23,350/- based on a mark up at cost of 33.37% and proposed an adjustment of Rs.7,81,482/- In its objections filed before us, the assessee has while acknowledging the fact that its technical experts were indeed deputed with the AE in France submitted that it recovered expenses pertaining to the salary, travel and stay expenses for the employees seconded by the assessee to Cimenti Francais S.A ("CF"). The said expenses initially borne by the assessee are cross charged to the AE at cost. These costs are reimbursed by CF without any mark up and hence, the transaction is at arm's length price. Assessee did not answer the point raised by the TPO as to the service element. The deputation of the technical experts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ECB and the DRP had rejected the claim of the assessee on account of forex loss by relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Goetze (India) Limited and also on the basis of decision of Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. ACIT in W.P.(C) 4554 of 2011 and held that as the assessee has not claimed the forex loss in the return of income or in the revised return of income, therefore, this claim is not sustainable. However, the Assessing Officer in Para 3.1 had also disallowed the claim of the assessee after relying on the directions of Hon'ble DRP and in addition had denied the claim after relying upon section 43A of the Act. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us. 64. The ld.AR for the assessee had submitted the following written submissions in support of his case reading as under : "That, the position adopted by the AO for not even allowing the actual loss is contrary to his own conclusions where he says that only the actual loss on payment would be allowed. That, the issue of allowance of the revised liability arising on account of foreign exchange fluctuation is no longer res-integra. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court in the case of Wipro Vs. CIT 137 Taxmann.com 230 and also the provision of section 43A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee is directed to provide all the information required by the Assessing Officer and after considering all the documents / evidence, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue in accordance with the law after following due process of law. Accordingly, these grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. GROUND NOS.15 TO 18 69. At the outset, ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee is not pressing ground Nos.15 to 18 which are with respect to the claim of balance of 50% additional depreciation, excess levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C and non-grant of full credit for taxes paid and requested that the same may kindly be dismissed as not pressed. 70. In view of the submission of ld.AR, we are hereby dismissing these grounds. Accordingly, ground Nos.15 to 18 are dismissed as not pressed. GROUND NOS.19 TO 24 71. Coming to the additional grounds 19 to 24 filed by the assessee, we found that assessee had filed a letter before the DRP whereby the assessee sought to raise the additional grounds of objections. We have already decided the above iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res no adjudication. Accordingly, ground no.7 is dismissed. ITA NO.2169/HYD/2018 77. Now, we will deal with ITA No.2169/Hyd/2018 for the A.Y. 2012-13. As we have already decided the main appeal ITA 254/Hyd/2017 where the assessee has raised grounds and additional grounds and these grounds raised in the appeals have already been adjudicated in the said appeal while deciding the said appeal. Accordingly, no separate adjudication is required. In the light of the above, the appeal in ITA No.2169/Hyd/2018 is dismissed. 77.1 IN THE RESULT, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2169/Hyd/2018 is dismissed. ITA NO.66/HYD/2019 78. Now, we will deal with ITA No.66/Hyd/2019 for the A.Y. 2014-15. GROUND NOS.1 TO 8 In this appeal, assessee has raised as many as eight transfer pricing issues and five non-transfer pricing issues. We have already allowed transfer pricing grounds in our lead appeal for A.Y. 2011-12. Following the earlier orders for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 and the reasoning given while deciding appeal for A.Y. 2011-12, we allow the transfer pricing issues. Accordingly, ground nos.1 to 8 are allowed. GROUND NOS. 9 TO 13 79. Coming to non-transfer pricing issues (ground nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statistical purposes. GROUND NO.10 82. Ground no.10 is with respect to depreciation on goodwill. This ground was already decided while dealing lead appeal ITA No.616/Hyd/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12. Hence, as per the decision in the said lead appeal, this ground is remitted to the file of AO and accordingly, the same is allowed for statistical purposes. GROUND NO.11 72. Ground No.11 is already dismissed as not pressed in lead appeal. Hence, ground No.11 is dismissed as not pressed. GROUND NO.12 73. Ground No.12 is with respect to disallowance of provision for obsolete spares. Respectfully following the overall decision in ITA No.616/Hyd/2016, we remand this issue back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. GROUND NO.13 74. Ground No.13 is the alternative addition made by the Revenue as the lower authority was of the opinion that the assessee has not furnished any actual rendition of services. The ld.AR had drawn our attention to Para 2.2.8, 2.2.9, 2.10 to 2.2.19 of DRP's order and it was submitted that the assessee has provided the necessary evidence for rendition of services. However, the DRP has wrongly concluded that no evidence was filed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
