Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 278 - AT - Income TaxTP adjustment - reimbursement of expenses - HELD THAT:- As in the present case, no search was conducted to find out the independent entity in a comparable transaction and the arm’s length price of the international transaction was treated to be NIL. In the present case, no doubts about payments made by the assessee have been raised by the AO u/s 37 of the Act. Further, accrual of benefit to assessee or the commercial expediency of any expenditure incurred by the assessee cannot be the basis for disallowing the same, as held in the case of EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012 (4) TMI 346 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Thus we are of the considered opinion that TPO as well as learned DRP were not justified in treating the value of international transaction of ‘Reimbursement of Expenses’ to be NIL, in the present case. Accordingly, grounds raised in assessee’s appeal are allowed. Disallowance of provision for costs incurred on completed contracts - HELD THAT:- The issue arising in the present case is recurring in nature and has been decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal forpreceding assessment years. Thus, respectfully following the orders passed by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case cited 2006–07, [2019 (4) TMI 873 - ITAT MUMBAI], 2007–08 [2020 (7) TMI 189 - ITAT MUMBAI], 2009–10 [2020 (8) TMI 842 - ITAT MUMBAI], we uphold the plea of the assessee and delete the impugned disallowance of provision for costs incurred on completed contracts. Accordingly, grounds raised in assessee’s appeal are allowed. Taxability of excess of progress billings over accumulated costs incurred - HELD THAT:- We find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd [2019 (4) TMI 873 - ITAT MUMBAI] decided similar issue in favour of the assessee. DR could not show us any reason to deviate from the aforesaid orders and no change in facts and law was alleged in the relevant assessment year. The issue arising in the present case is recurring in nature and has been decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal for preceding assessment years. Thus, respectfully following the orders passed by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case cited we uphold the plea of the assessee and delete the impugned addition - Decided in favour of assessee.
|