9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Ld DDIT is bad in law, contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case and without following the directions of the Dispute Resolution panel (DRP) in the right perspective. 3. Disallowance of Interest (other than interest paid by the appellant to tits overseas branch). 3.1. The Ld DDIT erred in disallowing the interest of Rs. 43,88,653/- (other than interest of Rs. 48,41,347/- paid by the appellant to its overseas branch) 3.2. The Ld DDIT erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant was engaged in banking business and accordingly interest expense was incurred exclusively for the purpose of the appellant‟s business and therefore ought to be allowed as a deduction. 3.3. The Ld DDIT erred in not following the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act determining the total loss of Rs. 12,64,11,970/-. Before passing the said order, AO proposed to make an ex-parte assessment u/s 144 of the Act. However, during the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Panel-1 (DRP), assessee appeared and objected to the addition proposed in the draft assessment order. The DRP-1 issued directions on 16.9.2010 u/s 144C(5) of the Act, which was incorporated by the AO, while making the final assessment u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act. The same are the subject matter of dispute before us. 3. At the outset, Mr. Majoj Purohit, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the revised grounds reproduced above and mentioned that ground no.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002) order dated 18.5.2012. During the set aside proceedings, assessee shall be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, ground no.3 is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Ground No.4 relates to the disallowance of interest paid to Head Office and to other overseas branches amounting to Rs. 48,41,347/-. In this regard, Ld Counsel mentioned that this is a case of payment of interest to the Head Office and other overseas branches of the assessee. Therefore, applying the „principles of mutuality‟, the amount paid is not chargeable to tax. He fairly mentioned that this issue should be remanded to the files of the AO for examining the issue afresh in the light of the Special Bench decision in the case of Sumito ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
