Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1685 - HC - Income TaxTP adjustment - Interest on loan to Sun Pharma Global Inc (AE) at London Inter Bank Offer Rate (LIBOR) Plus 2% Rate - addition to the Arm's Length Price of international transaction as Corporate Guarantee -sale of Pantoprazole tablets to Sun Pharma Global, BVI - HED THAT;- Appeal admitted on question A to J Weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) - expenditure incurred on Corporate Advertisement - HELD THAT:- The amount involved is merely ₹ 40,000/-. Looking to the smallness of claim, the question is not considered. Disallowance u/s. 14A as per Rule 8D - addition on administrative expenses only on the issue of earning exempt income as a share of partnership firm M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries - non applicability of section 37 - HELD THAT:- The assessee had claimed certain expenditure which the Assessing Officer had disallowed holding that the same was not for the purpose of business. CIT (A) gave partial relief but made disallowance under section 14A of the Act. In further appeals by the Revenue as well as by the assessee, the Tribunal uphold applicability of section 14A of the Act but provided that Rule 8D formally may be applied. In that view of the matter, this question does not arise at the hands of the Revenue. We make it clear that we have already admitted Revenue's contention regarding non-applicability of section 37 of the Act. Such question would not be influenced by non-entertaining this question. Disallowance of provision for leave encashment u/s. 43B - ITAT setting aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction that the issue must be considered afresh after the decision from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd [2007 (6) TMI 175 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] - Tribunal, noted that the SLP against such judgement is pending before the Supreme Court and therefore placed the issue before the AO and directed the Assessing Officer to decide the same on the basis of outcome of such proceedings before the Supreme Court - HELD THAT:- Revenue brought to our notice, the amended provision of sub-section (6) of section 153 which provides for a time limit of 12 months for the Assessing Officer to pass order giving effect to the appellate orders. He submitted that this would create a complication and the Assessing Officer's order may become time barred, if by the time the period expires, the Supreme Court were not to pronounce the judgement. We recognize the genuine difficulty in view of sub-section (6) of section 153 now amended. Mere admission of this question in this Tax Appeal will also not solving the issue since this would give rise to chain of proceedings out of the order that the Assessing Officer may be compelled to pass within the statutory time frame. Under the circumstances, after hearing both sides, this issue is placed before the CIT (A) who would dispose of the proceedings once the judgement of the Supreme Court in the Revenue's appeal against such judgement of Calcutta High Court is rendered. This question is disposed of accordingly.
|