9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the income of the Appellant under the normal provisions of the Act at Rs. 3,93,13,710 as against returned income of Rs. 2,57,91,567 based on the directions received from Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP"]. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld AO/DRP erred in disallowing the corporate cost allocation expenses amounting to Rs. 1,35,22,144 alleging that the Appellant has not furnished any evidence to support allowability of the expenditure incurred and further erred in treating the arm's length price in relation to corporate cost allocation transaction as Nil." 2.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee company was incorporated on 01-04-2005 and has a branch office in India. The Branch o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rpose of business and for the expenses incurred, it received actual services. He, therefore, proposed disallowance of Rs. 1,35,22,144/-. The assessee approached the DRP who upheld the action of the AO. The AO accordingly made addition of Rs. 1,35,22,144/- to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved with such order of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an application requesting admission of the following additional evidences under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963: a. copy of the transfer pricing report for the A.Y. 2009-10, b. Copy of the service agreement entered into between the assessee and EIMG,. Switzerland , c. Working sheet containing break up of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars. Referring to the copies of the order sheet, he submitted that the assessee has filed various details as required by the AO from time to time. He accordingly submitted that the addition made by the AO should be deleted. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand strongly objected to the admission of the additional evidences. He submitted that despite sufficient opportunity granted by the AO as appearing from the entries in the order sheet, the assessee did not produce the details. Even during proceedings before DRP also, he did not produce those details. Therefore, the additional evidences should not be admitted. Strongly supporting the order of the AO he submitted that the addition should be sustained. 5. Alter consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
