9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l in the assessee's case for A.Y. 200001 in I.T.A. No.1279/Ahd.2006, to hold that "Finding of C.I.T. (A) on the issue of allocation of selling and distribution expenses for the purpose of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act does not survive" without appreciating that the Tribunal in I.T.A. No.1279/Ahd/2006 had quashed reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 200001, without commenting on the merits of the case, and without appreciating that the A.O. For the detailed reasons mentioned in the assessment order had reallocated selling and distribution expenses for the purpose of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act, which was partly deleted by the C.I.T.(A)? B. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the I.T.A.T. was justified in del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facturing Co. Ltd. reported in 219 ITR 521 which was squarely applicable in the present case. No question of law arises. This question is therefore not considered. 4. QuestionC pertains to the decision of the Tribunal to set aside the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in connection with the transfer pricing adjustments. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had made additions on the ground that the commission paid by the assessee to associated enterprise was not at arm's length. In appeal, the Commissioner deleted substantial portion of such addition, but retained it in part. The assessee and the department both were in appeal before the Tribunal, in which, in the impugned judgment, the Tribunal held and observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndings of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and direct the A.O. to delete the entire transfer pricing adjustment made by it. Ground no.11 is accordingly allowed." 5. Perusal of the materials on record and in particular, the above quoted portion of the Tribunal's decision would demonstrate that the entire issue was based on facts and appreciation of record. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had given justification for the payment of the commission and why it was at arm's length. It was pointed out that the commission paid by the assessee to the Associated Enterprise was at the rate of 7.84% as against 11% paid to unrelated party. It was found that the rate of commission ranged from 0.38% to 33.33% whereas the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
