Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 353 - ITAT DELHITransfer pricing adjustment - retrospective applicability of sec. 92CA(2B) - powers of assessing officer to make such reference and the powers of TPO to furnish report in this behalf - Held that:- respectfully following the Special Bench judgment in the case of L.G. Electronics India (2013 (6) TMI 217 - ITAT DELHI), we decide these legal grounds against the assessee as a consequence thereof, the relevant grounds raised in the memo of appeal, touching these legal aspects stand dismissed. Nature and scope of AMP expenses as elucidated by the Special Bench. The quantification thereof and the bench marking of the AMP expenses which is to be subjected to TP adjustments applying the ALP methodology by the TPO and DRP. - Held that:- Merit in the argument of assessee as there being no objection or adverse comment in respect thereof coming from any of the lower authorities i.e. AO/ TPO, DRP and also ld. CIT(DR), there is no justification in setting aside these expenses for verification again to AO/TPO as supported by judgment in the case of M/s Glaxo Smitkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. (2012 (4) TMI 279 - ITAT CHANDIGARH) and Canon India Ltd. - Consequently, only the figures supplied by assessee excluding the items like trade discounts, cash discounts, subsidy etc. which are to be excluded by Special Bench should be verified by AO because no adverse comments are offered by lower authorities on these details. Thus only such details of expenses are set aside back to the file of AO/TPO to decide the issue of AMP expenses by applying the proper comparables after hearing the assessee and keeping in view the Special Bench directions in this behalf - grounds about TP adjustments in respect of AMP expenses are partly allowed for statistical purposes. V.R.S.- whether for purpose of claiming deduction u/s 35DDA, scheme of voluntary retirement need not comply with conditions laid down in section 10(10C) r.w.r. 2BA and SID is eligible to claim deduction of 1/5th of the expense incurred on VRS under section 35DDA - Held that:- Rule 2BA is in the form of guidelines for the purpose of Section 10(10C), which relates to taxation of income/amount received by an employee under VRS scheme. The said Rule does not deal with the expenditure incurred by the employer when the assessee makes payment under the VRS scheme formulated by them. The treatment of expenditure or outgoing of the employer has to be dealt with under Section 35DDA and the prescribed rules, if applicable. Rule 2BA, which is applicable to the recipient i.e. the employee, cannot be applied. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Depreciation on printers, scanners, UPS and switches etc. - 60% or 15% - Held that:- As decided in CIT v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT] computer accessories and peripherals form an integral part of a computer system and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed at the rate of 60%. Disallowance of part of advertisement and selling expense - Held that:- This issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of CIT vs. Salora International Limited (2008 (8) TMI 138 - DELHI HIGH COURT) wherein held that there was a direct nexus between the advertising expenditure and the business of the assessee and that unless the assessee made its products known to the market, its business would suffer, therefore, entire expenditure on advertising to be of a revenue nature Disallowance of depreciation on software license fees at 60% - Held that:- "License" is an intangible asset as per Part-B of Appendix-I, in which the rate of depreciation on all intangible assets has been prescribed @ 25 per cent. Therefore, excess claim of 35 per cent was disallowed. No particular argument has been made by the assessee. Part-B of Appendix-I in respect of "intangible assets" provides depreciation at uniform rate of 25 per cent and "licenses" have been included therein. Accordingly no error in the order of DRP. Miscellaneous income incidental and inextricably linked to the business of the undertaking considered for computing deductions u/s 10A and 10B - Held that:- Since the complete details of ancillary income have not been referred to no reasons to interfere with the findings of DRP and AO. This ground of the assessee is dismissed. Assessee's appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes
|