TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m to the file of the AO for examining them afresh by considering the details furnished by the assessee and for deciding both the issues in the light of decision rendered by the Tribunal in the assessee s own case in AY 2008-09. The assessee is also directed to furnish the details in support of the claims made to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. Whether the recovery of administrative expenses would form part of operating income for the purpose of computing operating profit margin? - To examine the correctness of the findings of the TPO, we examined the Annual Report and it is noticed by us from Schedule 13 to the P L Account that the above amount has been shown as 'Administrative expenses recovered' which clearly indic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that both the issues cited above are covered by the decision rendered by the coordinate bench in the assessee s own case relating to AY 2008-09 in ITA No.92/Bang/2013 dated 19-06-2015. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the assessee has not furnished the basis for working out the Provision in both the cases and hence the Ld CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance. 4. We heard the parties on these two issues and perused the record. As submitted by Ld D.R, the Ld CIT(A) had confirmed both the disallowancea for want of details. In fact, the Ld CIT(A) had deleted the disallowances of identical nature in AY 2008-09 and hence the revenue was in appeal before the Tribunal in that year. However, in the yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of which a reliable estimate is possible of the amount of obligation. As stated above, the case of Indian. Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd., (supra) is different from the present case. As stated above, in the present. case we are concerned with an army of items, of sophisticated (specialized) goods manufactured and sold by the assessee whereas the case of Indian Molasses Co. Ltd. (supra) was restricted to an individual retiree. On the other hand, the case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd, (supra) pertained to an army of employees who were due to retire in future. In that case the company had estimated its liability under two gratuity schemes and the amount of liability was deducted from the grass receipts in the profit and loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... end on the data systematically maintained by the assessee. It may be noted that in all the impugned judgments before us the assessee(s) has succeeded except in the case of civil Appeal Nos. 3506-3524 of 2009 - Arising out of S.L.P.(G) Nos. 14178-14182 of 2007 - Rotork Controls India 'P.) Ltd. v. CIT, in which the Madras High Court has overruled the decision of the Tribunal allowing deduction under section 37 of the 1961 Act. However, the High court has failed to notice the reversal' which constituted part of the data systematically maintained by the assessee over last decade. 18. For the above reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 5-22007 - Rotork Controls Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assesee instead of taking stock at the realization, value to the P L account has made provision to debit Profit Loss account which means the closing stock is taken to the P L account without reducing the value due to obsolescence/ diminution in the value of the inventory. The only point is to be taken care of is to ensure that the opening stock of subsequent year shall be taken at the value after reducing the provision made for this year. Accordingly, except the above observation and fact to be verified that the value of opening stock of the subsequent year is to be correctly taken after reducing the provision made for this year from the c1osin stock, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) qua the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bench in respect of above said issue:- 12. The revenue is in appeal challenging the direction of the DRP directing income from administrative services as part of operating revenue. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel are opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in directing the TPO/AO to exclude the income of ₹ 2,33,97,997 received as Administrative Services, even when this is attributable to income from other sources which is not attributable to the business and cannot be considered as operating revenue. 3. For these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
