9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1098X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in the facts and circumstances of the present appeals before us, the issues in dispute in the present four appeals before us should also be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh order in accordance with law, consistent with the view taken by Ld. CIT(A) in AY 2011- 12. Ground allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.3882/Del/2019 And ITA No.3883/Del/2019 And ITA No.3884/Del/2019 And ITA No.3885/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 22-3-2023 - Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri Anadee Nath Misshra, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Mr. Himanshu Garg, CA For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Senior Departmental Representative ( Sr. DR , for short) ORDER PER BENCH: (A) These four appeals by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... depreciation on cost of aforesaid development expenses has been disallowed in AY 2012- 13. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. C1T(A) grossly erred in interpreting that the grounds of appeal filed before him were not relevant to the appeal filed for subject year (i.e. AY 2012-13) citing that the Transfer Pricing adjustment made by TPO in AY 2011-12 is not pending before him and thereby dismissed the appeal for subject year. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the disallowance made in AY 2012- 13 is consequential to the adjustment made in AY 2011-12. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) initiated in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grossly erred in interpreting that the grounds of appeal filed before him were not relevant to the appeal filed for subject year (i.e. AY 2013-14) citing that the Transfer Pricing adjustment made by TPO in AY 2011-12 is not pending before him and thereby dismissed the appeal for subject year. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the disallowance made in AY 2013- 14 is consequential to the adjustment made in AY 2011-12. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and interest charged under section 234C in the assessment order passed by Ld. AO. That the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .e. AY 2014-15) citing that the Transfer Pricing adjustment made by TPO in AY 2011-12 is not pending before him and thereby dismissed the appeal for subject year. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the disallowance made in AY 2014-15 is consequential to the adjustment made in AY 2011-12. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating on the interest charged under section 234A and 234B of the Act in the assessment order passed by Ld. AO. That the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the hearing. ITA No.3885/Del/2019 for AY 2016-17 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ject year. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the disallowance made in AY 2016- 17 is consequential to the adjustment made in AY 2011-12. That the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the hearing. (B) The issues involved in these four appeals are common, and are related to the transfer pricing issue arising in the case of the assessee for AY 2011-12. In AY 2011-12, the assessee under took international transactions with its Associated Enterprise ( AE ) namely Inergy Japan, relating to payment of development expenses amounting to Rs.1,98,00,000/-. The assessee capitalized these expenses. Depre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be decided until the dispute regarding capitalization of aforesaid expenses amounting to Rs.1,98,00,000/- in assessment order is decided. We further find that the aforesaid dispute regarding capitalization of expenses amounting to Rs.1,98,00,000/- is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) vide aforesaid order dated 27/02/2019 of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi. In the fitness of things, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present appeals before us, the issues in dispute in the present four appeals before us should also be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh order in accordance with law, consistent with the view taken by Ld. CIT(A) in AY 2011- 12, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
