TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... giving certain directions, matter has been sent back to the AO/TPO for deciding the issue accordingly. DR fairly conceded that the facts and circumstances of the instant appeal are mutatis mutandis similar to those of earlier years. Respectfully following the precedent, we set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of AO/TPO for deciding this issue afresh in accordance with the directions given by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the earlier assessment years Deduction for Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess paid on income-tax while computing the Income from Business and Profession for the year under appeal - Admission of additional ground - HELD THAT:- Having gone through the subject ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation of the delay. We are satisfied with such a reason. The delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing and disposal on merits. 3. The ld. AR did not press ground Nos. 5 and 6 due to smallness of the amount. Such grounds are, therefore, dismissed as not pressed . 4. The only other surviving issue in this appeal through various grounds is against the confirmation of transfer pricing addition of ₹ 14,56,09,180/-. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It was a 51:49 joint venture between Kirloskar Brothers Limited (KBL) and Copeland Corporation, USA for carrying on the activities of Planning, Development, Manufacturing, Assembling, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M and applied the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method for this international transaction. Accordingly, he determined Nil ALP of the international transaction of Receipt of Advisory and other services and proposed transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 14.48 crore. The AO incorporated the transfer pricing adjustment in the draft order notified by him. The assessee carried the matter before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) but without any success. The AO in the final assessment order made the transfer pricing addition of ₹ 14.56 crore against which the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is found as an admitted position that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Appellant as a business expenditure under the provisions of the Act. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) has observed that the purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. If, for example, as a result of a judicial decision given while the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, it is found that a non-taxable item is taxed or a permissible deduction is denied, we do not see any reason why the assessee should be prevented from raising that question before the Tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item . Answe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
