TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection Disallowance on claim of depreciation on printers data, cable router and scanner - Held that:- Identical issue was decided by the Tribunal while deciding the appeal in A.Y. 2008-09 it is hereby directed that Assessing Officer shall allow depreciation @ 60% Disallowance of claim of depreciation on Jodhpur property - Held that:- Tribunal had decided the above issue against the assessee while adjudicating the appeal for AY 2008-09 Disallowance made u/s. 14A - Held that:- AR stated that assessee had made strategic investments, that it had sufficient own funds, that FAA had not admitted the additional grounds. DR left the issue to the discretion of the Bench. After considering the available material we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice matter should be restored back to the file of FAA for fresh adjudication. He is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee Adjustment in relation to the travel related segment - Held that:- We hold that the TPO had wrongly rejected the comparables. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the TP adjustment made by the TPO and confirmed by the DRP has to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill put to losses and the same is not accounted by the income fact of figures. These kind of accounting issues are outside the scope of TP principles. The discontinuance of earlier arrangement of not paying any counting fees to it's AE at Mauritius and also foregoing the corresponding service / incentive fees, does not erode the tax base if one keeps in mind the ratio of such receipts and payment made which is tilted in favour of the payment side. Moreover, the appellant has demonstrated by an Internal CUP (HSBC / Travelex) on this aspect to establish its case. The adjustment is therefore, deleted. - I.T.A./ 1261 & 1238/Mum/2015, - - - Dated:- 31-5-2016 - Sh. Rajendra, Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad, Judicial Member For The Revenue :Shri N.K. Chand-CIT For The Assessee : Shri Madhur Agarwal PER RAJENDRA, AM Challenging the orders dated 08.12.2014 and 24.12.2014 of CIT(A)-58 and of the Assesssing Officer(AO), the assessee has filed the appeals for the above mentioned two Assessment Years(AY.s.). Assessee-company, engaged in the business of tour operator, travel agent and is also an authorised dealer in foreign exchange. The details of filing of returns, ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Payments for handling of outbound tourists 4,54,76,323/- TNMM 3. Export of foreign currencies 224,169,517/- CUP 4. Name License Fee 17,706,908/- TNMM 5. Reimbursement of expenses paid 65,25,899/- CUP 6. Reimbursement of expenses received 58,89,920/- CUP The TPO observed that the operation segments of the assessee were divided into two segments namely travel and related services segment (ii) financial services segment, that name and license fee paid to the AE had been allocated to both the segments, that it had entered into an agreement for use of trade mark license with its AE namely Thomas Cook UK Ltd.(TCUK)on 29.3.2006, that TCUK was holding majority share in the assessee company and was the owner of Thomas Cook trade mark, that it had granted the assessee an exclusive and non assignable licence to incorporate the name Thomas C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of expenses of brand building in the territory by TCUK to the assessee was nothing but arm twisting of the assessee to pay the brand, that the deal given to the assessee by its AE was not at arm s length, that the assessee was entitled to use the brand only in its territory, that the assessee just by being in controlled transaction was in a situation where it had to spend huge amount on building and promoting the brand in its territory and it had also to pay license fee, that such grossly unjust and controlled transaction would not happen between the uncontrolled parties, that the brand was deteriorating in UK and Europe. Accordingly ALP of license fee paid to TCUK along with forex fluctuation, (Rs.1, 77, 06, 908/- + ₹ 10, 00, 000/- assesseeRs.1, 87, 06, 908/-) was determined at Nil. Further, the AMP expenses were downwardly adjusted to 0. 76% of total revenue i.e.0.76% X 2, 53, 01, 95, 569 assessee 1, 92, 29, 486/-. As the total AMP expenses appearing in the P L account was ₹ 10.01 crores therefore, an adjustment of ₹ 8.09 by of notoriously to crores(Rs.10.01cr- 1.92 crores) was made. The TPO further mentioned that trademark license fee payment was already incl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration the FAA had not passed a speaking order.He has just confirmed the adjustment. In the next year the DRP has dealt with all the arguments raised by the assessee before the TPO and before the DRP itself. We find that except for the issue of non admission of additional evidences the assessee has advanced all most all the arguments while arguing the matter for the subsequent year. Therefore, we would like to adjudicate the AMP expenditure issue, while deciding the appeal for next AY. 3. N ext ground of appeal is about adjustment of ₹ 22.82 lakhs under the head Corporate Guarantee Commission(CGC). After going through the annual report of the assessee, the TPO found that the assessee had provided a corporate guarantee of ₹ 7.60 crores to its AE Thomas Cook Mauritius Operations Ltd. (TCMOL)for banking facility availed by it from HSBC.He directed the assessee to explain as to why the CGC should not be adjusted. Vide its reply, dt. 21.12. 2012, the assessee stated that TCMOL was a step down subsidiary of the assessee, that it was also a strategically important subsidiary, that Mauritius was a key financial round about for Asia into Africa and Europe, that the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed into certain international transactions with its associated enterprise within the meaning of section 92B of the Act and consequential reference under section 92CA(1) was made by the Assessing Officer to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of arm s length price of such transactions. In an order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 30/09/2011, the Transfer Pricing Officer found that assessee had not charged any fee for providing corporate guarantee on behalf of its associated enterprise and, therefore, he determined an amount of ₹ 18, 05, 400/- being adjustment required to be made to the returned income on this count. During the year under consideration, the assessee had provided a corporate guarantee on behalf of its associated enterprise M/s. Thomas Cook Mauritius Operations Co. Ltd. for banking facilities availed by it from HSBC bank to the extent of ₹ 6, 01, 80, 000/-. The stand of the Transfer Pricing Officer was that in the absence of any guarantee fee commission earned by the assessee from such transaction, the same could not be said to have been recorded at an arm's length price. The Transfer Pricing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.(supra) is concerned, the same has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide ITA No.1165 of 2013 dated 8th May, 2015 also and in this manner, it is sought to be made out that application of a rate of 0.50% to determine the arm's length rate towards guarantee commission fee would be justified. 5. On the otherhand, Ld. Departmental Representative has pointed out that the rate of 0.50% being canvassed by the assessee is not an absolute situation, inasmuch as, in certain other decisions of the Tribunal adjustment on account of guarantee commission fee has been approved even @ 3%. In this connection attention has been invited to the decision of the Tribunal in ITA NO.6394/Mum/2012 dated 21/08/2013, wherein rate of 3% has been approved. Our attention was also invited to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Technocraft Industries (India) Ltd., vs. Addl. CIT, in ITA Nos.7519 7990/Mum/2011 dated 8/01/2014, wherein rate of 2.08% has been approved. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Be that as it may, the only dispute that the assessee has contested before us relates to the application of the rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court in the case of Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.(supra), such an approach cannot be upheld since the instant is a case, where a corporate guarantee has been issued by holding company for the benefits of its step-down subsidiary associated enterprise. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the material available on record, we, therefore, proceed to uphold the rate of 0.50% for the purpose of determining the arm's length rate of the guarantee commission fee. In this view of the matter, we setaside the order of CIT(Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to determine the addition in view of our aforesaid direction. Thus, on this aspect assessee partly succeeds. Respectfully, following the above order, we decide the ground no.3 in favour of the assessee, in part. 4. G round No.4 is about disallowance on claim of depreciation on printers data, cable router and scanner amounting to ₹ 6, 11, 892/-. It was brought to our notice that identical issue was decided by the Tribunal while deciding the appeal in A.Y. 2008-09 (supra), we would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the above order and same reads as under :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey were not used for making investments. After considering the submission of the assessee, the AO held that for making investments manpower and funds were required, that the investments were made from a pool of funds available to the assessee. Applying the provisions of Rule 8D r.w.s 14A(2), he made a disallow - ance of ₹ 8.79lakhs. 6.1. A ggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA. In the original appeal the disallowance under section 14A was not challenged.However, by way of an additional ground the assessee raised the said issue before the FAA. But, he did not adjudicate it. 6.2. B efore us the AR stated that assessee had made strategic investments, that it had sufficient own funds, that FAA had not admitted the additional grounds. DR left the issue to the discretion of the Bench. After considering the available material we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice matter should be restored back to the file of FAA for fresh adjudication. He is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee . Gr. No.6 of the assessee is allowed in part. ITA No.1238/Mum/2015(10-11): 7. F irst Ground o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the assessee was performing almost all the functions for the out bound tourists, that it had required Expert Manpower to perform the function, that in the TPSR it was mentioned that only a marketing fee was retained by the assessee, that nowhere in the TPSR the percentage of the Marketing fee was mentioned, that it had not provided the said data. The assessee was asked to explain as to why three comparable entities, i.e. CTL, TTPL and BLCL, which were functionally not comparable, should not be excluded from the final list. Vide its letter dtd.24.12.2013, the assessee filed its reply in that regard and stated that all the three comparables were functionally similar. After considering the same, the TPO held that the above mentioned three comparables were to be excluded from the list.He picked up the last comparable i.e. TWL as a valid comparable.He further observed that the PLI of the TWL was not properly calculated, that there were certain mistakes in it.Hence the PLI of TWL was recalculated as under: Travel Segment revenue (A)- Rs.13,65,59,448/- Bad Debts (B)- Rs.2,81,93,887/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.68%, that the TPO rejected three comparables without providing any opportunity to it, that he accepted Travel and Tour Segment(TTS) of one of the comparables, that the three rejected compara - bles(except the TTPL) were a part of the benchmarking set used in the TP documents for the years prior to assessment year 2010-11, that there had been no adjustments on that issue in those years, that consistency in the comparables and its functional profiles had not been questioned extract for the year under consideration, that the TPO adjusted the operating margin of TWL-TTS by in appropriately deducing the bad debts expenses, that bad debts written off were intrinsically linked to the business, that same were operating in nature and could not be held to be abnormal, that use of only one comparable was inappropriate, that it did not represent the industry, that if bad debts were eliminated from all the for comparables provided by the assessee the mean margin of the compa rable-companies would be 13.21% which was within + -5% of arm s length range. The assessee relied upon the case of Willis Processing Services India Private Ltd. After considering the orders of the TPO and the submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdance with the Act, that he had rejected the data for the earlier year, that he did not allow 5% raise benefit to the assessee, that the updated operating margin of the assessee was 10.06%, that the updated mean margin of four comparables was 7.86%, that the value of IT.s. entered into by the assessee with its AE.s was at arm s length, that adjustment of bad debts in finalising the PLI and ALP was against the provisions of the Act. He referred to point No.5 of the balance sheet abstract and its general business profile of the assessee-company and highlighted that in the abstract it was mentioned that the assessee was an IATA travel agent and was engaged in all tourism related activities. With regard to CTL the AR stated that page-32 of the annual report of the company pertained to financial data on the reserves and surplus, that there was only one type of reserve called foreign exchange earning-unutilised reserve, that it had foreign exchange-earning for the AY. 2010-11 as disclosed at page No.48 of the annual report, that the criteria used by the TPO was vague, that it could not be used to assess the functional comparability, that the financial data of CTL and of the assessee wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of ₹ 12.08 Crores, that the DRP confirmed the rejection of comparables and dismissed other arguments. We are aware that the principles of res-judicata do not apply to the income tax proceedings. But, the rule of consistency applies. Without assigning valid reason for rejecting the earlier years stand, the TPO should not have rejected the comparables that were found valid comparables in previous years. Without bringing on record the salient features of the year under consideration as compared to the facts of the earlier years, the departmental authorities cannot take an opposite view. It brings uncertainty in the assessment proceedings. In our opinion, stand taken in the earlier years should not be disturbed in the subsequent years until and unless new facts emerge and the same are confronted to the assessee.Here, we would like to refer to the case of Galileo Nederland BV, (367ITR319), of the Hon ble Delhi High Court wherein it has been held that decision on an issue or question taken in earlier years though not binding should be followed and not ignored unless there are good and sufficient reasons to take a different view, that said principle was based upon rules of ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty is not part of operating profit or would not be taken into consideration for computing the same. We can therefore make a general observation that all business enterprises are making and writing back liabilities as a normal incident of operating business. Therefore on facts we do not see any justification for excluding provisions written back in the profit and loss account as not forming part of the operating profit of the taxpayer. Accordingly claim of the taxpayer is accepted. 107. The next item relates to balances written back. In our considered opinion, finding given in respect of provisions written back is equally applicable to balances written back more particularly when ld. CIT(A) has not given any separate finding and the Transfer Pricing Officer has said nothing specifically on this item. The balances written back should also be treated as part of operating profit. We direct accordingly. 42. We are of the view that in the instant case bad debts and provision for bad and doubtful debts are part of the operating expenses and we direct the TPO to recompute the margins of comparable companies by including bad debts and provision for bad and doubtful debts as opera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business that of the assessee and there exists functional similarities between the assessee and the comparable selected by it. As, all the comparables selected by it were in the same line of business and they were face same risks, so, the TPO was not justified in rejecting the three and cherry picking one. Comparables selected by the assessee should not be rejected in a casual and light manner. Now we would like to discuss all the three comparables rejected by the TPO. We find that one of the reason for rejecting CTL was foreign exchange earning, that it had earned foreign exchange, that the annual report of the CTL for the year under consideration, at page 48 talks of foreign exchange earnings, that the TPO had misinterpreted the reserve and surplus being a balance sheet item (page 32 of the annual report) as earning in foreign exchange. It is a fact that majority of operating income of TCL is from Tours and travels operations, that in the segmental reporting, the assessee has reported activity of tourism business is the only activity, that in the balance sheet abstract and general is this profile TCL has been referred as IATA isn t carrying out tourism related activities. We f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere it was already building and promoting it.He found that one of the comparables selected by the assessee namely TWL had incurred expenditure at the rate of 1.8% for AMP for the year under consideration. Therefore, he restricted the AMP expenses to 1.8% of the revenue, as shown in the case of TWL. 8.1 . Aggrieved by the order of the AO/TPO the assessee filed objections before the DRP. Before it the assessee argued that the TPO had computed notional benefit arising to TCUK in respect of a completely domestic transaction entered into by the assessee with third parties i.e. advertising and business promotion incurred by it during the year for the purpose of selling products in Indian market, that the transaction were purely domestic transactions with third parties and were outside the purview of section 92 of the act, that the AMP expenses did not form part of the international transactions, that the expenditure had been entirely incurred in India with unrelated domestic parties and the same had not been reported in form 3 CEB, that transfer pricing is applicable only in respect of income arising/expenses incurred from/for an international transaction, that the TPO had treated AM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authorities below-TPO, A. O, CIT(A), DRP-that in the light of the earlier decisions and particularly LG's case(140 ITD 41)the TPOs and other authorities proceeded in a manner following the Bright Line Test, that in certain cases, references could also have been made to the agreements between the parties i.e., Indian entity and foreign AEs., that in some cases, Bright Line Test had been followed and the expenditure on AMP has been sliced into two portions, that the non-routine expenditure in excess of BLT was considered separately as an IT and bench -marked accordingly for the purposes of ALP of AMP transaction, that the TPO in the segment of distribu -tion or manufacturing, considered the normal expenditure on AMP which did not include amount over and above the BLT, that the TPO evaluated the transactions into set of two transactions i.e. distribution and AMP separately, that in cases of manufacturing, the TPO did the benchmarking separately for manufacturing segment and AMP segment, that in case AMP was considered not to be an international transaction the bench - marking of the other segment(distribution or manufacturing)would get impacted , that the non-routine excess ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the DRP, that the adjustment was made/confirmed by the TPO/DRP because both of them were of the opinion that by incurring expenditure in India the assessee was benefitting a brand name of TCUK. 8.3.1. F irst of all, we would like to mention that as on today the legal position is as clear as crystal with regard to AMP expenses. The Hon ble Delhi High Court has dealt the issue in depth and has arrived at the conclusion that in absence of any agreement for sharing AMP expenses it cannot be held that AMP expenditure was an IT. Probable incidental benefit to the AE would not make such a transaction an IT. The factors like payment under the head AMP expenditure to the third independent parties, promoting own business interest by way of AMP expenses take away the alleged internationality of the transact - tion. In absence of any direct or direct evidence of incurring of AMP expenses by the assessee for the benefit of the AE or on behalf of the AE, it is has to be held that the transaction in dispute is not covered by the provisions of section 92B or 92B(1)of the Act and hence is not an IT. Once it goes out of the ambit of being an IT, FAR analysis of comparables or any other adjus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal transaction. 928.(1) For the purposes of this section and sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E , international transaction means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non 1261 residents; in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises, and shall include a mutual agreement or arrangement between two or more associated enterprises for the allocation or apportionment of, or any contribution to, any cost. or expense incurred or to be incurred in connection with a benefit, service or facility provided or to be provided to anyone or more of such enterprises. (2) A transaction entered into by an enterprise with a person other than an associated enterprise shall, for the purposes 'of sub-section (1), be deemed to be a transaction entered into between two associated enterprises, if there exists a prior agreement in relation to' the relevant transaction between such other person and the associated enterprise, or the terms of the relevant transaction a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue, and even if resort is had to Section 92F (v), which defines 'transaction' to include 'arrangement', 'understanding' or 'action in concert', 'whether formal or in writing', it is still incumbent on the Revenue to show the existence of an 'understanding' or an 'arrangement' or 'action in concert' between MSIL and SMC as regards AMP spend for brand promotion. In other words, for both the 'means', part and the 'includes' part of Section 928 (1) what has to be definitely shown is the existence of transaction whereby MSIL has been obliged to incur AMP of a certain level for SMC for the purposes of promoting the brand of SMC. 59. In Whirlpool of India Ltd. (supra), the Court interpreted the expression acted in concert and in that context referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd. v.. Jayaram Chigurupati 2010(6)MANU/SC/0454/2010, which arose in the context of acquisition of shares of Zenotech Laboratory Ltd. by the Ranbaxy Group. The question that was examined was whether at the relevant time the Appellant, i.e., 'Daiichi Sankyo Company and Ranbaxy were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;transaction' and that every expenditure forming part of the function, cannot be construed as a 'transaction'. Further, the- Revenue's attempt at re-characterising the AMP expenditure incurred as a transaction by itself when it has neither been identified as such by the Assessee or legislatively recognised in the Explanation to Section 92 B runs counter to legal position explained in CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. (supra) which required a TPO to examine the 'international transaction' as he actually finds the same. 62. In the present case, the mere fact that B L, USA through B L, South Asia, Inc holds 99.9% of the share of the Assessee will not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the mere increasing of AMP expenditure by the Assessee involves an international transaction in that regard with B L, USA. A similar contention by the Revenue, namely the fact that even if there is no explicit arrangement, the fact that the benefit of such AMP expenses would also encure to the AE is itself self sufficient to infer the existence of an international transaction has been negatived by the Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) as under: 68. The above su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mining whether the AMP spend of the Assessee on- application of the BLT, is excessive, thereby evidenc - ing the existence of an international transaction involving the AE. The quantitative determination forms the very basis for the entire TP exercise in the present case. 74. The problem with the Revenue's approach is that it wants every instance of an AMP spend by an Indian entity which happens to use the brand of a foreign AE to be presumed to involve an international transaction. And this, notwithstanding that this is not one of the deemed international transactions listed under the Explanation to Section 928 of the Act. The problem does not stop here. Even if a transaction involving an AMP spend for a foreign AE is able to be located in some agreement, written (for e.g., the sample agreements produced before the Court by the Revenue) or otherwise, how should a TPO proceed to benchmark the portion of such AMP spend that the Indian entity should be compensated for? 63. Further, in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. '(supra) the Court further explained the absence of a 'machinery provision qua AMP expenses by the following analogy: 75. As an analogy; and for-no othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r promoting the brand of the foreign AE. As mentioned-in- Sassoon -J David-(supra)- the--fact that- somebody other than the Assessee is also benefitted by the expenditure should not come in the way of an expenditure being 'allowed by way of a deduction under Section 10 (2) (xv) of the Act (Indian Income Tax Act, 1922) if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by the law . With reference to the submissions of the DR, we would like mention that first of all the issue before us is not an assessee that is engaged in distribution and manufacturing of certain goods, so the question of slicing of expense in two portions would not arise.However, the other part of the argument that matter should be restored back to the file of the AO/TPO as they were following the order of LG and did not have benefit of later judgments of the Hon ble High Court, we would like to mention that matter can be restored back in certain conditions only. Restoration of matters to the AO.s is not a tool to give one more opportunity of hearing to the litigants. It is not advisable to prolong the judicial proceedings in the name of fair play. It is not a case where new evidences have been placed on recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iple need not be invoked in such circumstances. CIT (A) considered the same and allowed the claim of the assessee and deleted the adjustment as seen from para 2.10 of the impugned order. 5. During the proceedings before us, Ld DR relied on the order of the AO and the TPO and submitted that every transaction has to be independently benchmarked. However, there is no specific submission by the Ld DR to counter the reasoning given by the CIT (A) while granting the relief to the assessee. 6. We have heard both the parties on this issue and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities. It is a fact that the assessee has not charged from AE. Further, it is also equally true that AE charges counting fees also on the transactions of the assessee. If both are taken into account quantitatively, it is the claim of the assessee that the assessee will put to losses and the same is not accounted by the income fact of figures. These kind of accounting issues are outside the scope of TP principles as discussed in para 2.9 of the impugned order. The CIT (A) discussed the issue at length in para 2.10 of his order, giving the reasoning. For the sake of completeness of this order, the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of claim on Jodhpur property. Following our order for the earlier year, (para No.5, pg.9-10)ground No.5 is decided against the assessee. 12. L ast Ground of appeal deals with disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Rules of ₹ 96.20 lakhs. During the year the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had received dividend income of ₹ 11.01 lakhs on mutual funds and same was claimed exempt, that it had not allocated any expenditure towards the earning of the exempt income. He directed the assessee to file explanation in that regard. Vide its letter dated 3/02/2014, the assessee stated that it had Suo Motu disallowed ₹ 6, 415/- under the provisions of section 14A of the Act, that the dividend income was claimed as exempt income predation of total income u/s.10 (35) of the Act, that it had not incurred any expenditure, direct or indirect, for earning the said exempt income, that the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962(Rules)were not applicable in respect of strategic investment made in subsidiaries, that expenditure incurred for acquiring shares out of commercial expediency had already been c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
