TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 2006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l plea, it will be premature to deal with grievances raised by the AO. Disallowance on account of interest expenses u/s 36(1)(iii) - once the funds are put into business they lose their identity - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- We see no reasons to interfere in the matter as learned CIT(A) s order for the assessment year 2009-10, based on which impugned relief was given, has since been confirmed by a coordinate bench vide order [ 2016 (9) TMI 1500 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] and the learned Departmental Representative has not been able to point out any material difference in the facts of the case of the said assessment year vis- -vis the facts of the case of this year. As a matter of fact, there is no dispute that material facts of the case are same. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. Addition on account of royalty payment - payment was made for the use of landmark - Capital expenditure - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- We see no reasons to interfere in the matter as learned CIT(A) s order for the assessment year 2009-10, based on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduced at page 14 of the CIT(A) s impugned order, but that plea was not disposed of by the CIT(A). Our attention was then invited to a coordinate bench decision in the case of Calance Software Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT [(2018) 92 taxmann.com 164 (Del)] holding that a reference being made to the TPO in violation of the CBDT circular is not good in law. We were thus urged to hold that the very reference to the TPO was vitiated in law, and, as a corollary thereto, the impugned ALP adjustments are vitiated in law. Learned Departmental Representative, while fairly accepting that this plea of the assessee was not disposed of by the CIT(A), prayed that the matter may at best be referred to the file of the CIT(A) on this short point. 5. Having heard the rival contentions, and having perused the material on record, we see merits in the plea of the learned counsel in principle but then no document was cited before us showing a threshold limit of Rs 15 crores being in force at the relevant point of time. As far the Calance Software case (supra), that was a case in which the value of transactions was less than Rs 5 crores and the CBDT circular holding the threshold limit, for reference to the TPO, wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and hierarchy of administration will mean nothing. Satisfaction of one authority cannot be substituted by the satisfaction of the other authority. It is trite that when a statue requires, a thing to be done in a certain manner, it shall be done in that manner alone and the court would not expect its being done in some other manner. Therefore, the additional Ground of the assessee is allowed. 6. There is nothing before us to suggest the threshold limit of Rs 15 crore in such cases being in force at the relevant point of time. In any case, the plea of the assessee is not disposed of by way of a speaking order. In this view of the matter, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on this short point by way of a speaking order, in accordance with the law and by way of a speaking order. As the matter is being remitted to the file of the CIT(A) on this technical plea, it will be premature to deal with grievances raised by the Assessing Officer. 7. Ground no. 1 is thus allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In ground no. 2, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance: T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he similar payments have been disallowed as capital expenditure. The Assessing Officer also noted that the CIT(A) has, in those years, allowed the claims in appeal but that fact did not impress the Assessing Officer, as he was of the view that the relief so granted by the CIT(A) is under challenge in appeal before the CIT(A). He, in line with the stand taken at the assessment stage in those years, treated the said expenditure as capital expenditure but allowed depreciation @ 25% on the same. The net disallowance was thus made at Rs 56,35,500. The Assessing Officer is aggrieved of the relief so granted by the CIT(A) and is in appeal before us. 14. Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the material on record, we see no reasons to interfere in the matter as learned CIT(A) s order for the assessment year 2009-10, based on which impugned relief was given, has since been confirmed by a coordinate bench vide order dated 6th September 2016 and the learned Departmental Representative has not been able to point out any material difference in the facts of the case of the said assessment year vis- -vis the facts of the case of this year. As a matter of fact, there is no disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
