TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey had to shift the place from where they were operating. The abnormality and difficulty resulting in extra expenditure was not created or caused by the associated enterprise. They were not responsible or liable for the said payments/expenditure. The associated enterprise did not have legal or contractual obligation to make extra or additional payment beyond the true and correct value of the transaction. - Decided against revenue. - ITA 678/2012 and CM 20555/2012 (delay) - - - Dated:- 17-7-2013 - MR. SANJIV KHANNA AND MR. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, JJ. For the Appellant : Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Through Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates ORDER 1. Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33/-. Respondent/assesee had to shift their office from Safdarjung Enclave (a residential area) to Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate at a very short notice in view of the sealing drive undertaken by the Municipal Corporation on account of non-conforming usage. 3. The Tribunal in its detailed order has examined each one of the said expenditures and has referred to the response of the TPO. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent had supplied software to its parent company and, therefore, the parent company should have also shared burden of ₹ 1,11,73,078/- and thus the order of the Tribunal requires reconsideration. 4. Expenditure of ₹ 1,11,73,078 is not disputed or doubted. There is no debate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd reiterated in C.I.T vs. Madras Auto Service Pvt. Ltd. 233 ITR 468. Therefore, we hold that the claim of the assessee for relocation expenses of ₹ 32,88,224/- ought to be allowed in full under the provisions of section 37(1) of the IT Act.? 6. In response to the submission that operations could have been shifted on a weekend, without disruption, tribunal has recorded:- 4.9 Another TPO s contention is the nature of assessee s business is such that shifting of business from one premises to another can be effected over a weekend, without causing disruption to the business of the assesses, in this regard we agree with the contention of the assessee that before the operations of the assessee could be shifted from one premises to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or and taken into consideration, then the operating margin of the respondent/assessee come to 17.80%, which is higher than the comparable operating margin of 17.09%, taken as a benchmark by the TPO. Submission on behalf of the appellant that the parent company should have shared the burden or a part thereof is not legally tenable. The said expenditure was incurred by the Indian company because of peculiar problems faced by them as a result of which they had to shift the place from where they were operating. The abnormality and difficulty resulting in extra expenditure was not created or caused by the associated enterprise. They were not responsible or liable for the said payments/expenditure. The associated enterprise did not have legal or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
