TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsaction and not in relation to assessee’s entire sales/turnover. - No error in the directions of the DRP. Appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. Not allowing the benefit of the proviso to Sec. 92C - Held that:- A perusal of the assessment order shows that following the directions of the DRP, the AO has made TP adjustment of ₹ 3,16,022/-. We find force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel that the benefit of proviso i.e. the difference is within the range of +/ - 5% should be allowed to the assessee. We direct the AO to verify this contention of the assessee and decide the issue as per the provisions of the law. Disallowance being loan written off - Held that:- Firstly the assessee lended money to MST knowing full ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... components like bi-metal engine bearings, bushes, washers, flanges for automotive, industrial, agricultural, earthmoving, marine and stationary engines. More than 50% of the shares are held by Federal Mogul Corporation, USA. The Associated Enterprises of the assessee are:- 1) Federal Mogul Corporation, U.S. 2) Federal Mogul S.A.R.L, Italy 3) Federal Mogul Operations France S.A.S 4) Federal Mogul Wiesbaden GmbH, Germany 5) Federal Mogul Bimet, S.A. 2.2. During the year, the assessee entered into the following international transactions: S. No. Particulars Amount in Rs. Method 1 Import of Raw material 44,55, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Ratilal Becharlal Sons in ITA No. 7876/M/11 wherein the Tribunal at para-13 of its order has held that adjustment arising out of ALP cannot be made on the entire turnover and the same has to be restricted to the International transaction with the AE. Thus the ALP has to be at International Transaction and not in relation to assessee s entire sales/turnover. 6. Considering the facts in totality in the light of the decision of the Tribunal (supra), we do not find any error in the directions of the DRP. Appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. 7. Coming to the Cross objection of the assessee, it is seen that the Cross objection is late by 80 days. We find that the assessee has filed an application for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... off as unrecoverable. 13. Before the DRP, the assessee strongly contended that the amount was advanced for the purpose of business, therefore the same should be allowed as a revenue loss. The DRP observed that loan was granted in capital field and for capital purposes. Further granting of loan is not a business of the assessee Neither is the loan or any part thereof was credited in the P L account and offered for taxation before such a write off. The DRP declined to allow deduction. 14. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision in the case of CIT Vs Honda Siel Power Products 165 ITR 577. 15. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff as expenditure. We, therefore confirm the findings of the DRP. 18. Before closing, the reliance on various judicial decisions by the assessee is misplaced as the decisions are on different set of facts. 19. The last grievance relates to the brought forward losses. In our considered opinion, this issue has to be relooked as we have confirmed the findings of the DRP in so far as Transfer Pricing adjustments is concerned in Revenue s appeal. The AO is directed to decide this issue afresh as per provisions of the law. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th July, 2015 - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
