Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 208 - AT - Income TaxTP adjustment - adjustment of interest @12% as arm's length price on receivables from Gulf Batter Co. Ltd. after allowing 60 days credit period and from HBL America Income. & HBL Germany GmBH after allowing 180 days credit period - whether AO/TPO have erred by treating receivables from AEs as a separate international transaction? - HELD THAT:- It is sufficiently clear from a perusal of the assessment findings that the impugned ALP adjustment is based on the assessee's details produced in its letter dt. 23-11-2016 containing as well request to adopt the impugned interest rate @12% than 14.75% taken by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). We observe in this backdrop of the facts as to how the assessee could not be taken as an aggrieved party once the impugned adjustment is based on its own computation submitted during the course of assessment. Coupled with this, this tribunals decision in Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd.[2017 (5) TMI 965 - ITAT DELHI] holds that such interest on delayed realisation on receivables is an international transaction in itself. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the impugned ALP adjustment in issue. The assessee's former six substantive grounds to this effect are declined. Addition on account of mismatching of tax credit as per form 26AS viz-a-viz its books of accounts - assessee's case is that the very income stands assessed in preceding assessment years and therefore, it amounts to double addition - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that in this backdrop of the facts about the instant issue requires factual verification at the Assessing Officer's end so that the impugned sum does not suffer double addition in different assessment years. This 7th substantive ground is taken as accepted for statistical purposes in foregoing terms. Disallowance u/s Section 14A r.w.s. 8D amount included in Section 115JB MAT computation -HELD THAT:- This tribunal in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments P. Ltd.,[2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] holds that such Section 14A disallowance does not deserve to be included in Section 115JB MAT computation. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned MAT addition in foregoing terms.
|