Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1254 - ITAT MUMBAITP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Entity namely M/s Suashish Diamonds Ltd. has been excluded on account of RPT filter. However, keeping in view the submissions made by Ld. AR that this entity has not crossed RPT filter, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. TPO / Ld. AO to consider the RPT computations as submitted by AR before us. If the said comparable do not cross RPT threshold as suggested by Ld. AR, the said entity shall be included in the final list of comparable. ALP has to be applied only in relation to international transactions and not in relation to assessee’s entire sales / turnover. The bench, at para 11, has also enumerated the mode of computation of the tolerance range of +5%. Taking a consistent view, we direct the lower authorities to re-compute the TP adjustment, if any, in the light of findings of Tribunal in AY 2007-08. Expenditure on computer software - allowable revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case in AY 2007-08 insofar as the directions on account of AMC for maintenance of software given by the DRP is concerned, the same appears to be very reasonable and no interference is called for. However, with regard to other expenditure, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify this contention of the assessee, in the light of the decision of the Special bench of the Tribunal, Delhi rendered in Amway India Enterprises V/s DCIT [2008 (2) TMI 454 - ITAT DELHI-C] . Depreciation on Sony Viao Laptop - HELD THAT:- The assessee could not furnish any bill / voucher in support of the same and only filed credit card statement showing the payment of the same. Accordingly, depreciation of ₹ 0.54 Lacs claimed against the same was disallowed. DRP confirmed the same since the assessee failed to file requisite documentary evidences. We find that this ground would require no indulgence on our part since the assessee could not discharge the onus to substantiate the expenditure and secondly, this issue stood covered against the assessee by the order of Tribunal for AY 2007-08
|