TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We thus, accept the Revenue's arguments in principle that interest on receivables is indeed an international transaction U/s. 92B of the Act. Interest adjustments on receivables - We notice with the able assistance of both the parties that neither of the TPO in these three assessment years has given any comparable instance in the very segment whilst charging the impugned interest on the assessee's receivables since he had adopted the SBI's term deposit rates only in benchmarking the same. The Revenue's endeavor before us supports the lower authorities' action on the pretext that such receivables are very much akin to a financial transaction to be benchmarked as per the SBI's short term lending or deposit rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground as well. Disallowing business promotion expenses - HELD THAT:- It transpires from a perusal of the case records the DRP had directed the Assessing Officer to examine the Assessee's vouchers which in turn were submitted only to the extent of ₹ 75,49,208/-. AO's final assessment order holds that the vouchers are not wholly and exclusively related to the assessee's business. DR fails to substantiate that such day-to-day expenses very much form part of the regular heads of expenditure per se which cannot be altogether ruled out. We also make clear that the Assessee has further failed to prove the live nexus between its impugned claim to have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in below for reference: 1. That I am holding jurisdiction over the Respondent assessee and am aware of the facts therein. 2. That due to mix-up of the requisite file of the Respondent assessee in the office of the Pr. CIT-4, Hyderabad, the authorization along with original order of the CIT(A) could not be forwarded to me till 28/03/2015. 3. That due to the delay in such communication, there is a delay in filing of Appeal by 2 days. 4. It is earnestly prayed that the delay in filing the Appeal be condoned and Appeal be admitted to be heard on merits. 3. On perusal of the averments of the ITO, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad as stated above, we find that he was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st is as to whether interest on receivables forms an international transaction or not u/s. 92B of the Act. Suffice to say, this tribunal's coordinate bench decision Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 85 taxmann.com 121 (Delhi) holds that interest on receivables indeed comes within the purview of section 92B Explanation (c) inserted vide Finance Act 2012 as applicable with retrospective effect from 1/4/2002. Hon'ble Madras high court's recent judgment in PCIT Vs Reddington India dated 10/12/2020 in Tax Appeals 590-591/2019 also holds the same view. We thus, accept the Revenue's arguments in principle that interest on receivables is indeed an international transaction U/s. 92B of the Act. 7. Next comes the adjudication of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stments of ₹ 12,12,62,138/- and ₹ 12,71,68,334/- in assessee's appeals ITA No. 131 2196/H/2017 in AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 (supra); respectively. 9. We stay back on the Revenue's second substantive ground in ITA No. 451/H/2016 that the DRP has erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude communication charges of ₹ 1,17,35,035/- from assessee's total turnover. We notice herein as well that the Assessing Officer's draft assessment order had excluded the impugned communication charges from export turnover only which stands modified in the DRP's directions that the assessee's total turnover of ₹ 4,26,963/- must also follow the suit to this limited extent. Suffice to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne the Assessee's vouchers to the tune of ₹ 82,93,680/- which in turn were submitted only to the extent of ₹ 75,49,208/-. The Assessing Officer's final assessment order holds that the vouchers are not wholly and exclusively related to the assessee's business. Learned DR fails to substantiate that such day-to-day expenses very much form part of the regular heads of expenditure per se which cannot be altogether ruled out. We also make clear that the Assessee has further failed to prove the live nexus between its impugned claim to have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business only. Facing with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restrict the impugned disallowance to the extent of 20% on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
