TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e outside the purview of Transfer Pricing mechanism. There is no denying the fact that in the subsequent years the assessee would be claiming depreciation on the cost of capital asset which would include payment of fees for Technical Assistance and Project Management. Therefore, determination of ALP of such services in the year of payment of such fees would be relevant. While concluding, a mistake has crept in the order. In para 12 of the order, it was wrongly mentioned that ground No.1 and 2 are restored to the file of Assessing Officer. In fact, it is ground No.3 which needs to be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for determination of ALP. Further, in para 13 while summing up the finding on ground No.3, it was wrongly observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 of the appeal. The same was in principle, accepted by the Tribunal. 2.1 However, while summing up, the Tribunal in para 12 wrongly observed that ground No.1 and 2 are restored to the file of Assessing Officer and hence, allowed for statistical purposes. In fact, ground No.1 2 have been allowed by the Tribunal vide its findings in para 10 of the order. Similarly, in para 13, the Tribunal while concluding the appeal mentioned that ground No.1 and 2 have been restored to the file of Assessing Officer and ground No.3 has become academic and hence, has not been deliberated upon. The Tribunal has given specific findings with respect to ground No.3, as well. Hence, ground No.3 as per findings should have been allowed for stati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for Technical Assistance and Project Management. Therefore, determination of ALP of such services in the year of payment of such fees would be relevant. Thus, in the light of aforesaid findings, ground No.1 and 2 of the appeal were allowed. 5. However, while concluding, a mistake has crept in the order. In para 12 of the order, it was wrongly mentioned that ground No.1 and 2 are restored to the file of Assessing Officer. In fact, it is ground No.3 which needs to be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for determination of ALP. Further, in para 13 while summing up the finding on ground No.3, it was wrongly observed that ground No.3 becomes academic and hence, is not deliberated upon. In para 10 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eserves to be allowed, we hold and direct accordingly. 13. In ground No.3 of the appeal, the assessee has raised alternate plea to ground No.1 and 2. In principle, we have allowed the ground No.3 of the appeal and restore the same to the file of Assessing Officer/TPO to determine ALP of international transactions under dispute, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the ground No.3 of the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. With the above rectification in the order dated 15-02-2019, there would be no change in the final outcome of the appeal of assessee. 7. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms aforesaid. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
