TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Trademark/license Fees and Corporate/Bank Guarantee stands at Nil to the TPO by following the Chennai Tribunal s decision in assessee's own case for assessment year 2009-10 [ 2014 (10) TMI 669 - ITAT CHENNAI ] - HELD THAT:- 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 [ 2015 (8) TMI 40 - ITAT CHENNAI ] 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. Disallowance u/s.14A r.w Rule-8D - assessee contended that since no exempt income is earned , disallowance u/s.14A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 year also. 2.1 The next issue for consideration is that the assessee is exploiting the trade mark REDINGTON for the purpose of carrying on its business towards which it made payments to M/s.Redington Distribution Pte. Ltd., Singapore. The TPO made a downward adjustment of Rs 1,93,29,120/- in respect of trademark , license fee paid by the assessee to that singapore company . The assessee pleaded before the DRP that the Tribunal in its own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 found that the assessee s investment as on 01.04.2010 was Rs.5 lakhs and as on 31.03.2011, it was Rs.2,05,00,000/-. The AO disallowed Rs 4,09,23,978/- u/s.14A read with Rule-8D(2) (i), (ii) (iii) by placing reliance on the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Cheminvest Ltd., Vs. ITO reported in (2009) 121 ITD 318(Delhi)(SB) and CBDT s Circular No.5 dt 11.2.2004 . 5.2 Before the DRP, the assessee contend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antified 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 through subsidiary companies, they were on account of business expediency and earning dividend therefrom is purely incidental . Therefore , the investment made by it in its subsidiary is not to be reckoned for disallowance u/s 14A r w rule 8D, relied on the decision reported in EIH Associated Hotels Ltd Vs CIT in 2013- TIOL-796-ITAT-MAD for ay 2008-09 dt 17.7.2013 , furnished a copy schedule 6 of its balance sheet from its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
