TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mine that it was in excess of comparable transactions. The impugned order on facts independently came to the same conclusion as the CIT(A) that the TPO was not correct in stating that the respondent had not furnished the details in support of his claim for allocation of overhead office expenses to the extent of 8.5%. This was found to be incorrect as the respondent assessee has furnished the Certificate of Auditors of the JV partners indicating its overhead charges. The impugned order further records the fact that for the earlier Assessment Years 2004-2005 and 2005-06 on identical facts, the TPO did not challenge the claim of overhead expenses of the respondent's JV being debited with a cap of 8.5% of the turnover of the assessee. The is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent : S. M. Lala along with Jitendra Singh ORDER P.C. 1. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the common order dated 26th September, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2008-09. This appeal from the common impugned order relates to Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Mr. Walve, the learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue urges the following reframed questions of law : ( i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee following the AS7 of the ICAI and by not appreciating the fact that the same is not notified the provisions of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessment order was completed on the basis of the transfer pricing adjustment made in TPO's order by disallowing the above expenditure resulting in addition of ₹ 19.45 lakhs. (b) In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] allowed the appeal of the assessee. This by holding that the TPO had not brought anything on record to indicate that debiting of overhead expenses were excessive on the basis of comparables i.e. no benchmarking of the expenses. Reliance was also placed upon the Agreement between the JV partners and the assessee. Further, it held that details of overhead expenses were supported by the Auditor's Certificate of the JV partners and along with the detailed working. Thus, the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding of fact are perverse in any manner. (e) In the above view, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Thus, not entertained. 4. Regarding Question no. (iii) : ( a) In view of our answer to question no.(ii), this question has become academic. The impugned order of the Tribunal upholds the order of CIT(A) that on facts for the subject assessment year, there was no justification for enhancement the ALP by disallowing allocation of overhead office expenses of the JV partners to respondent assessee with a cap of 8.5% of the turnover of the respondent assessee. The reliance upon the earlier assessment orders was only in support of the fact that in identical factual situation, the TPO did not vary the ALP in respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
