TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleaded that it was not given adequate opportunity in this regard. In the facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to remit this issue to the AO who shall re-examine this issue and after affording due opportunity to the assessee shall pass a speaking order. Short credit of taxes deducted at source - HELD THAT:- We remit this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine and rework the short credit of taxes deducted at source. Levy of interest u/ss. 234B, C D - HELD THAT:- As charging of interest is mandatory and there is no discretion in the matter as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [ 2001 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] . We therefore uphold the action of the AO in charging of the interest u/ss. 234B, C D. The AO is directed to recomputed the interest u/ss, 234B, C D after giving effect to this order. - I.T(TP).A No.1378/Bang/2011 - - - Dated:- 21-4-2017 - SHRI. VIJAY PALRAO AND SHRI. S. JAYARAMAN, JJ. Appellant by : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR ORDER S. JAYARAMAN, J. This is an appeal filed by the assessee, against the order passed u/s. 143(3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustment of ₹ 33,684,OOOj- made to the ALP by the TPO. Sub-grounds Ca) to Cc) of ground.1 are argumentative in nature, hence not reproduced. Ground.2 is in respect of subjecting a hypothetical income to tax by way of imputing notional interest on the outstanding advance balances shown in the books of the assessee. Sub-grounds (b) to Cm) of ground.2 are argumentative in nature, hence not reproduced. Ground.3 involves disallowance of expenses on account of Electronic Data Processing CEDP)to an extent of ₹ 12,234,221/-. Sub-grounds (b) to (e) are argumentative in nature and hence not reproduced here. Ground no.4 is with regard to club membership expenses of ₹ 3,16,309/-. Here also sub-grounds (a) to (g) are argumentative in nature and hence not reproduced here. Ground no.5 is in respect of credit for tax deducted at source as per the revised return. Sub-grounds (a) to (e) are argumentative in nature and hence not reproduced .. Grounds 6 to 8 are in respect of levy of interest under sections 2348, 234C and 234D, respectively. 03. Ground no1 is general and it is mainly meant for ground no 2. The Id. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ITAT Bang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vables. In this regard, it was submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that there were no receivables from AEs outstanding for more, than 6 months. (ii) It was submitted that if at all any adjustment had to be made, the notional interest is to be computed on the net receivables after netting off payables to all the AEs and not only to the holding company, as taken by the TPO. (iii) It was submitted that the TPO has erred in adopting an interest rate of 14% by stating that in terms of the financial health, the AEs of the assessee are not considered fit to be returned even as 888 (Moderate Safety) as per CRISIL rating. Having so stated, the TPO arbitrarily concluded that the interest rate for 88B rated corporate Bond rates at 11.45% and with an upward adjustment of 20% to etrtve at the conclusion that the rate of interest of 14% is reasonable. 11.3 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below. 11.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record, including the judicial decision cited and placed reliance upon. We find that the decision of the ITAT, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it is not necessary for us to adjudicate on the other grounds of appeal raised on this issue. Consequently, the grounds raised at S.Nos.10 to 13 relating to the issue of interest on receivables are disposed off accordingly. We have heard the rival submissions. Following the above decision, we deem it appropriate to remand this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer j TPO for examination as to whether there was any agreement for charging interest on late payments or not and if it is found that there was no such agreement, then the T.P. Adjustment made in this regard requires to be deleted. To the extent, the corresponding grounds are treated as allowed. 04. On ground no 3, ie on the disallowance of expenses on account of Electronic Data Processing (EDP) at ₹ 12,234,221/- holding the same as capital expenditure but granting ₹ 58,68,286 depreciation on it @60%, since this Tribunal has upheld this addition in the earlier years, supra, and since there is no factual change, this issue fails and the corresponding grounds are dismissed. 05. On ground no 4, the assessee claimed the following expenditure Particulars As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
