Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 676 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTTP adjustment - 3% of the amount of guarantee given by the assessee on behalf of AE - Held that:- As decided in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. [2017 (2) TMI 1305 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] We note that the impugned order of the Tribunal while allowing the assessee's appeal holding that the arm's length price of corporate guarantee cannot be determined on the basis of comparison with the bank guarantee and relied upon the decision of Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. [2015 (5) TMI 395 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. No substantial question of law. Weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) on whole R&D expenditure - setting aside the issue of allocation of R&D expenses to Baddi unit for computation of deduction u/S 80-IC to the record of Assessing Officer for finding out whether R&D expenditure incurred has any direct nexus to Baddi unit when both these issues are interlinked? - as per ITAT withdrawal of the weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) is not justified and also noted that merely because the respondent had allocated R&D expenditure on pro rata basis to its Himachal Pradesh unit, it would not operate a bar to raise a claim subsequently, if otherwise it is correct in law - Tribunal set aside the issue of allocation of R&D expenses to the unit in Himachal Pradesh i.e Baddi for computing deduction under Section 80IC of the Act to the Assessing Officer - Held that:- We find that the grievance of the Revenue is not justified. All that the impugned order of the Tribunal did was to follow the binding decision of this Court in Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Lt. [2012 (9) TMI 620 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. No substantial question of law.
|