Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1483 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - international transaction of AMP and adjustment on account of the same - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, there is not an iota of material on the file apart from relying upon the fact that by incurring huge AMP expenses to the tune of 6.93%, taxpayer has enhanced brand value and created intangibles in favour of its AE, no cogent material is there to treat the incurring of AMP expenses as international transactions. TPO has also not returned the finding that how the benefit of AMP expenditure incurred by the taxpayer have benefited AE, no calculation has come on record, so in these circumstances when we discarded the BLT the entire case of ld. TPO/DRP fell flat. There is not an iota of material with ld. TPO to prove the existence of an international transactions involving AMP expenses by the taxpayer. TPO rather proceeded on the premise that the AMP expenditure incurred by the taxpayer were far excess of AMP expenses incurred by the comparables.PO has also applied the BLT which has been discarded by the Hon’ble High Court in a number of judgments. Even otherwise, in the absence of any agreement, arrangement or understanding between the taxpayer and its AE, expressed or implied, that AMP spent of the taxpayer would also be beneficial to the AE or it would enhance the brand value of the AE in any manner, no international transaction can be inferred. Thus we are of the considered opinion that the ALP of an international transaction involving AMP expenses, the adjustment made by the TPO/DRP/AO is not sustainable in the eyes of law. At the same time, we cannot ignore the submission of the learned DR that the matter is pending before Hon'ble Apex Court and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court would be binding upon all the authorities. In view of the above, we set aside the orders of authorities below and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. We hold that as per the facts of the case and the legal position as of now and discussed above in this order, the adjustment made by the TPO/DRP/AO in respect of AMP expenses is not sustainable. However, if the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court which is under consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court is modified or reversed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, then the Assessing Officer would pass the order afresh considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court. In those circumstances, he will also allow opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Adjustment of depreciation on account of capital assets getting converted into stock-in-trade - HELD THAT:- As relying on own case [2015 (3) TMI 932 - ITAT DELHI] we are of the considered view that conversion of used asset into stock-in-trade and sold subsequently and surplus on the sale is brought to tax then there is no loss to the Revenue. Consequently, the addition made by the AO/DRP is ordered to be deleted. Depreciation on printers, routers, UPS SMF battery etc. - @ 60%O OR 15% depreciation by AO/DRP by treating the same as plant and machinery. - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.[2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT] affirmed the findings returned by the Tribunal that computer accessories and peripherals, such as, printers, scanners and server etc. are integral part of the computer system, hence entitled for depreciation @ 60% instead of 15% allowed by the DRP/AO. Consequently, following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that the taxpayer is entitled for depreciation @ 60% on computer accessories and peripherals. Disallowance on account of bad debts and advances written off - addition challenged on the ground that the entire evidence was there before the ld. DRP by way of additional evidence which was also given to AO during remand proceedings - HELD THAT:- The issue is required to be remanded back to the ld. DRP to decide afresh after perusing the additional evidence brought on record by the taxpayer after providing opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer,
|