TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offshore revenues. As the Department has itself come to this decision on these very facts, we have no hesitation in applying the same percentage to the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer is directed to adopt 10% as the profit attributation on offshore revenues for the impugned assessment year 2007-08. Disallowances u/s 40(a)(i) and section 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- We set-aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication de-novo in accordance with law. The assessee states that its claim for deduction of expenses were disallowed u/s 40(a)(i) and section 40(a)(ia) in the earlier year and are being claimed in the current assessment year 2007-08. This claim has to be verified. Hence, we set aside the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn of income. Taxability of revenues earned from Outside India operations Ground 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/ AO erred in considering revenues received from operations carried out outside India as assessable to tax in India. Ground 3 Without prejudice to the above contention of the Appellant that the revenues earned from outside India operations are not taxable in India, the learned DRP/ AO have erred in not considering the loss incurred by the Appellant in executing the contract in India while estimating the taxable income at 25% of revenues. Ground 4 Without prejudice to Ground 2, the learned DRP/ AO have erred in making an arbitra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 to the international transaction of hire of equipment by disregarding the provisions of the Act and the Circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Ground 10 The learned DRP/ AO has erred in making an adjustment of ₹ 4,522,027 to the international transaction of project work installation services. Ground 11 The learned DRP/ AO has erred in making an adjustment of ₹ 13,933,197 to the international transaction of receipt of project support services. i) The learned DRP/ AO has erred in rejecting the Associated Enterprise ('AE') as the tested party. ii) The learned DRP/ AO has erred in considering incorrect operating margins of Dolphin Drilling Offshore Enterprise India L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to each other and the Appellant requests that the above grounds be decided based on the merits of the case. Your Appellant craves leave to add, to amend, to alter, to delete and/ or to modify any or all the aforesaid ground(s) of appeal. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted the following in writing :- Clough Engineering Limited (CEL) has closed its operations way back in 2007 and does not have any presence in India. However, its tax litigation in India is still going on The management of CEL intends to close its protracted litigation in India due to time and costs involved in such prolonged litigation. In its endeavor to avoid protracted litigation, CEL has undertaken various steps as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... context of offshore supplies which can be found from page 6 of 15 to 14 of 15. In continuation steps taken by CEL to avoid protracted litigation, under instruction we do not wish to press Ground 5 and Grounds 7 to 14 in respect of the captioned appeal, although CEL is not agreeable to the additions made in the order dated 25 November 2011 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act. Thus, CEL wishes to submit that based on commercial and administrative reasons and considering the time and costs involved in protracted litigation, it does not wish to press the aforementioned grounds of appeal. Several of these disputes were involved in the earlier years also. The dispute relating to attribution of profits on offsh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contentions of the assessee and relied on the orders of the DRP as well as the TPO on ground nos.3, 4 and 6, which were pressed by the assessee. 5. After hearing rival contentions of both the parties, we hold as follows : 6. Ground nos.1, 2 are dismissed as general in nature. 7. Ground nos.5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are dismissed as not pressed. The assessee had not pressed these grounds for the reason that the assessee wanted to avoid protracted litigation as they have closed its operations way back in 2007. This dismissal of grounds shall not be taken as a precedent for the reason given above. 8. This appeal leaves us with ground nos.3, 4 and 6. 9. Ground nos.3 and 4 are on the issue of attributation of prof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
