TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 28.9.2011 in relation to the assessment year 2007-08. 2. First ground of the appeal, being general, was not pressed by ld. AR. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 3. The second ground is against the levy of mark-up of 5% on reimbursement of cost recovered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s own case for the earlier year, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the AO/TPO for deciding it in accordance with the directions given by the Tribunal in the said earlier year. 5. Ground No.3 is against levy of mark-up of ₹ 1,35,885/- towards interest on delay in receipt of reimbursement of expenses from AEs. Briefly stated, the facts of this ground are th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the agreed period. The ld. DR was fair enough to accept this contention. 7. In view of the rival but common submissions, we set aside the impugned order on this issue and remit the matter to the file of the AO/TPO for restricting the amount of adjustment on account of interest to the period beyond the agreed credit period. We want to make it clear that this decision has been rendered on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant material on record. It is observed that the claim of the assessee about wrong classification of double taxation credit was rejected by the AO because the assessee did not file a revised return. This view was canvassed by the AO on the basis of the afore-referred judgment in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (supra) However, it is pertinent to note that para -4 of this judgment provides that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
