TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on priority basis - Decided in favour of petitioner. - S.A. No. 01/JP/2014 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2014 - Shri H. M. Maratha And Shri N. K. Saini,JJ. For the Petitioner : Miss Kanchan Kaushal, Shri P.C. Parwal Dhanesh Bafna. For the Respondent : Shri Shubhash Chandra, D.R. ORDER Per: N. K. Saini, A.M. Vide this stay application, the assessee requested to stay the outstanding demand of Rs. 61,91,39,940/-, which comprises of tax amounting to Rs. 41,90,84,521/- and the interest of Rs. 20,00,55,419/-. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is primarily engaged in manufacturing and distribution of personal care products including blades, razors, cartridges, shaving system, brushes etc. . The assessee e-filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rocedure was more than the MAT payable on declared book profit u/s 115JB, therefore, the regular income of Rs. 280,46,45,550/- was adopted for taxation purposes and a demand of Rs. 61,91,39,940/- was raised against the said order. The assessee preferred an appeal to the ITAT, Jaipur Bench, in IT(TP) No. 1/JP/2013 for the A.Y 2009-10, which is pending for disposal. The assessee preferred the stay petition before the Assessing Officer and requested to keep the recovery of demand in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal before the ITAT, Jaipur Bench. 3. Since the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, the assessee preferred this stay petition and submitted that the TPO without any direct or indirect evidence presumed that the assessee had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing expenses, therefore, the assessee had a prima facie good case that adjustment made by the TPO/Assessing Officer are more likely to be deleted and accordingly no demand is payable by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also pointed out that certain erroneous computation of assessee's AMP and sales expenses by stating that the AMP ratio of the comparable companies (owning the Indian brands) is 11.07% which is higher than the AMP ratio of the assessee viz 10.60% only. 5. As regards to the adjustment on account of business support services availed, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee availed Global Business Support (GBS) services from its associated enterprises. However, the TPO/DRP has disregarded the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces, the expenses on employees' cost of assessee has shown a decrease from 10.30% in the year 2005-06 (i.e. the year in which outsourcing was not commenced) to 6.66% in the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2009-10. It was contended that the TPO could have considered the arm's length price of the services as NIL only if there was a categorical finding that there existed certain comparables which in an identical situation to that of the assessee had not paid any fees for availing such services, therefore, the adjustment made by the TPO/Assessing Officer is more likely to be deleted and accordingly no demand is payable by the assessee. 7. As regards to the adjustment made on account of deemed interest on delays in collection from the Assoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tten off, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the said issue was decided by the ITAT, Jaipur Bench in assessee's favour. However, the department is in appeal before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. Therefore, this disallowance was made by the department. 9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee as regards to the adjustment on account of restructuring expenses, submitted that the said disallowance had been made by considering the same as capital expenditure and by disregarding the fact that these expenses were towards employees separation, relocation and related cost., which are allowable u/s 37 but grouped under the head 'restructuring expenses' which cannot be considered as capital expenditure. 10. It was further stated that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on certain terms and conditions and proposed to pay a sum of Rs. 5 crores in two equal installments of Rs. 2.5 crores each on or before 28th February, 2014. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee agreed for the same. We, therefore, direct the assessee to pay Rs. 2.5 crores on or before 14th February, 2014 and another amount of Rs. 2.5 crores on or before 28th February, 2014 and the remaining outstanding demand is stayed for 180 days or till the disposal of the appeal preferred by the assessee in IT(TP) No. 1/JP/2013. The registry is also directed to fix the above said appeal of the assessee out of turn on priority basis. 13. In the result, this stay application is allowed in above terms. (Order pronounced in the open court on 30/01/2014.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
