TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 98
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 28, 2018 issued by the DRP u/s 144C (5) of the Act ('the Impugned order') inter-alia on the following grounds: That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law: A. Grounds of appeal relating to corporate tax matters 1. The learned AO has erred in law and in fact by disregarding the ownership status of Cisco Capital India in relation to the assets leased out by it under finance lease, thereby disallowing the claim for depreciation made by Cisco Capital India in the return of income. 2. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the learned AO has erred in law and in fact, by not allowing depreciation on the opening written down value (`WDV') of the block of assets leased out under finance lease arrangement, pursuant to allowance of depreciation on the same block of assets for some of the prior years. B. Grounds of appeal in relation to transfer pricing matters 3. The learned TPO/ AO have erred, in law and in fact, by rejecting the economic analysis undertaken by the Assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Act in relation to the import of leasing equipment transaction which can additionally be corroborated by analysis under Comparable Uncont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the transfer pricing documentation requirements. 11. The learned TPO/ AO have erred, in law and in fact, by rejecting the use of multiple year data for transfer pricing analysis in transfer pricing documentation requirements. 12. The learned TPO/ AO have erred, in law and in facts, by excluding depreciation from cost base and citing Operating Profit before Tax (`PBT)/Capital employed computed by the Assessee as incorrect and re-computing Profit before Depreciation and Tax ('PBDT')/Capital employed as the Profit Level Indicator ('PLI'). 13. The learned TPO/ AO have erred, in law and in facts, by considering provision for Non-Performing Assets (`NPA') as operating for the computation of PLI of the Assessee and the comparable companies. 14. The learned TPO/ AO have erred, in law and in facts, by including certain non-operating expenditure and non-operating income as operating for the computation of PBDT of the comparable companies. 15. The learned TPO/ AO have erred, in law and in facts, by erroneously computing the capital employed for the purpose of computing return on capital employed of the Assessee and the comparable companies. 16. The learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he value of the international transaction with the Associated Enterprise (`AE') vis-a-vis the total purchases of the Appellant during the year (which comprises of uncontrolled transactions). The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add. alter. amend. vary. omit or substitute the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. So as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide on the appeal in accordance with the law. 4 In the course of hearing, it was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that the Tribunal order in assessee's own case for earlier years i.e. AY: 2011- 12 & 2013-14 in IT(TPA Nos.219/B/2018 & 688/B/2016 dated 07-06-2019 is available on pages 293-304 of the paper book and our attention was drawn to para-7 & 8 of this Tribunal order available on page-295 of the paper book. It was submitted that the issue involved in ground no.1 & 2 in the present year was also decided in this earlier Tribunal order for earlier two years. He pointed out that in the earlier years, the Tribunal has restored the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioned in the agreements considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. (supra) and if there are no material variations in the contracts, then depreciation has to be granted to the assessee as claimed. With these observations. we set aside this issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law". 9. It is seen that in the assessment year 2011-12, it is noted by the Tribunal in para-7 of the Tribunal order re-produced above that the assessee was asked to produce copies of agreement but the assessee has produced a few of them and the Tribunal considered it proper that at least some more should be produced for examination before the AO and the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh decision in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of ICDS Vs CIT (Civil appeal No.3282 of 2008) with direction that if the terms and conditions mentioned in the lease agreement are similar to the terms and conditions that are mentioned by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ICDS Vs CIT(supra) and if there is no material variation in the context then depreciation has to be granted to the assessee a....