9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds./2015 as under : 2. The first issue for our consideration is that the TPO made an upward adjustment of Rs.8,53,54,900/- on account of Corporate and Bank Guarantee charges issued by the assessee company to its AE. In this regard, the assessee contended before the DRP that this issue was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of Chennai Tribunal in its own case in ITA No.513/Mds./2014 in ay 2009- 10. Following the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 43 Taxmann.com 150, it held that since there is no cost involved in accepting the Corporate guarantee, it will not constitute an international transaction. The DRP directed the AO/TPO to follow the above decision of the Tribunal for this assessment y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the parties and perused the material on record. It is not the case of the Ld. DR that the impugned tribunal decisions are stayed by the Hon'ble High Court. Since the DRP has followed the decisions of Tribunal in ITA No.1743/Mds./2011 dated 26.06.15 for assessment year 2007-08 & in ITA No.221/Mds./2013 dated 07.08.2015 for assessment year 2009-10 in assessee's own case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the DRP on the above issues and accordingly, the grounds raised by Revenue are dismissed. Now, Let us take up assessee's appeal ITA No.535/Mds./2015 as under: 5. The main issue for consideration is disallowance of Rs 4,09,23,978/- u/s.14A of the Act r.w Rule-8D clauses (i) (ii) & (iii) . 5.1 The ld. Assessing Officer fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. reported in [2006] 10 SOT 722(Delhi)(Tib.) and Marezban Bharucha V.ACIT reported in (2007) 12 SOT 133(Mum.)(Trib.). Further, the DRP observed that ld. Assessing Officer has correctly noted in the assessment order that there was some element of expenses incurred by the assessee in relation to the investments and earning the exempt income, which needs to be quantified and disallowed u/s.14A of the Act and AO has rightly quantified the said expenses at Rs.4,09,23,978/- by using the Rule 8D and hence the DRP held that such action is justified and confirmed such disallowance. 6. The Ld.A.R mainly pleaded that the entire investment is made in its subsidiary companies, such investments had been made by the assessee to promote their business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
