9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of INR 42,14,599 made by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") to the value of international transaction entered into by the Appellant in relation to reimbursement of expenses. 3. The learned AO/DRP erred in disallowing the reimbursement of travelling and general office expenses paid by the Appellant in relation to certain employees seconded by the AE to the Appellant. 4. The learned AO/ DRP erred in disallowing the reimbursement of salary costs paid by the Appellant in relation to certain employees seconded by the AE to the Appellant. 5. The learned AO/DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that TPO erred in passing the order without following the principle of natural justice. 6. The learned AO/DRP erred in ignoring the documents and information provided by the Appellant which demonstrated that all its international transaction is at arm's length price. 7. The learned AO/DRP erred in determination of ALP, by incorrect application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price method ("CUP method") for the reimbursement of expenses. 8. The Learned AO/DRP erred by ignoring the evidences and documents submitted by the Appellant in regard to the reimbursement of salary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the assessment order was passed in conformity with the directions issued by the DRP. The DRP in its Order has confirmed the Order of the TPO by observing that this issue relates to determination of ALP relating to salary expat. Before DRP evidences produced such as appointment letter is same as that produced before the TPO. The conclusions drawn by the TPO have not been effectively rebutted. No evidence to show facts are not as understood by A.O. In the circumstances, DRP finds the objections of the assessee are without merit and have already been considered by the TPO. Therefore, objection was rejected. 5. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT and the Tribunal vide Order dated 11.12.2012 set-aside the Order of the DRP and A.O. and restored the matter back to the file of DRP for reconsideration of the issue afresh, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In pursuance to the above directions, the DRP issued directions under section 144C(5) dated 21.03.2014, consequent to which, the TPO has revised the T.P. adjustment to Rs. 42,14,599/-. A.O. accordingly made the addition. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that whatever evidence could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the Tribunal in first round proceedings in December, 2012, what steps have been taken by assessee for production of the additional evidences before DRP/A.O. It is also an admitted fact that the additional evidences have not been authenticated either by the assessee or by any responsible person. No certificate of genuineness of documents have been given in paper book. These are mere photo copies of some of the documents, therefore, genuineness of the same is in doubt. Further, most of the photo copies of the alleged additional evidences are in Chinese Language and some other details did not explain anything. When we have asked the Learned Counsel for the Assessee to read the same additional evidences in the paper book and to explain the nature of these documents, Learned Counsel for the Assessee was not able to read the Chinese Language and was also not able to explain the contents of any of the additional evidences filed in the paper book. Learned Counsel for the Assessee was not able to explain as to what is the relevance of these additional evidences to the matter in issue and what are the nature of these additional evidences and its contents thereof. No translated copies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not submitted enough evidence to justify the claim. Whatever evidences were filed by the assessee were accepted and part-relief in a sum of Rs. 13,45,205/- was granted to the assessee and rest of the addition was maintained on account of non-production of the documentary evidences which were claimed by assessee on account of expenses actually incurred by the A.E. under the Heads "Travelling Allowances, General Office Expenses and Salary paid to Employees on Deputation". However, the things remain same that no documentary evidences were filed before A.O./DRP despite in set-aside proceedings. Whatever additional evidences are filed now are not relevant to the matter in issue as the genuineness of the additional evidences itself are in doubt. Learned Counsel for the Assessee was not even able to read some of the documents or to explain the nature of the additional evidences filed now before the Tribunal. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation of assessee as to why these documentary evidences were filed before the authorities below and that what is the relevance of these documents and that genuineness of the documents itself are in doubt, therefore, we are not inclined to adm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition on the reasons that these expenses are calculated merely on estimate. The Tribunal however, vide Order dated 11.12.2012 restored the matter back to the file of DRP for reconsideration. The A.O. in view of the directions of the DRP dated 21.03.2014 made the addition accordingly. 8.1. It may be noted that the DRP in this matter has again examined the issue and the A.O. requested the assessee-company to furnish details/sufficient evidences. However, the claim of assessee-company remain unsubstantiated. The DRP noted that it is not known as to how the foreseeable loss have been calculated and what was the justification for making assumption of various accounts. It is noted that it is trite law that the loss has to be specifically ascertainable. It was noted that for claiming deduction under section 37 of the I.T. Act, assessee shall have to prove that expenses have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Therefore, notional loss could not be allowed unless it is crystallized. The DRP was, therefore, of the view that claim of assessee-company on this count is made merely on estimate. Moreover, if the taxpayer incurred such loss in a project, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
