9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng chemicals, filed return declaring total income of Rs. 19,46,00,340/-. Subsequently a revised return was filed on a total income of Rs. 14,77,25,342/-claiming "Brand Usage Rights" as revenue expenses. The Draft Assessment Order was passed on 27.12.2010 proposing an income of Rs. 37,61,28,215/-. The assessee filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel-I (DRP). The DRP issued direction on 23.9.2011 partly allowing the assessee's objections. The AO after considering the directions of the DRP has passed impugned assessment order determining the income at Rs. 37,39,30,275/- vide order dated 7.10.2011 passed u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed by the AO be set aside to the file of the DRP to decide the same afresh. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR while relying on the order of the DRP and AO further submits that in view of the paragraph 7 of his written submissions, the findings of the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand are not binding on the ITAT, Mumbai and therefore, the case may be heard on merits and not to be set aside. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that in the case of Hyundai Heavy Industries Ltd. (supra), it has been observed by Their Lordships vide paragraph 37 of the judgement as under : " ......Before parting, in order to ensure that no person should thin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. Counsel for the assessee that the order passed by the DRP is liable to be set aside as the same is contrary to the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand (supra). 9. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the written submissions filed by the ld. DR it has been submitted as under : "7. The findings of the Honourable High Court of Uttarakhand is clear and unambiguous. The writ petition of the assessee has been dismissed on the above issue. Having dismissed the writ, the Honourable High Court of Uttarakhand has proceeded to hold that the CBDT is to ensure that a jurisdictional Commissioner is not nominated on the DRP. This direction of the Honourable High Court is prospective in nature and this is clear from the fact that the writ o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
