TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal order are relevant in this regard and he submitted a copy of this Tribunal order. He submitted that in the present year also, this issue should be restored back to the file of AO with similar directions. TP adjustment - This is the submission of the learned AR of the assessee before us that in Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 similar matter is pending before DRP but since we are restoring back the Corporate Tax issue to the file of AO for a fresh decision, we feel it proper to restore back this TP issue in the present year also to the file of AO for a fresh decision and the AO is directed to decide the TP issue in line with the final decision of AO as per the direction of DRP in Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. - IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without giving effect to the set off of brought forward depreciation loss from prior years. B . Grounds of appeal in relation to transfer pricing matters 4. The learned TPO/ learned AO have erred, in law and in facts, by considering Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP') method as most appropriate method (without undertaking an objective analysis for identifying comparable transactions) and not accepting Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) adopted by the Appellant for determining the ALP of the international transaction pertaining to payment for availing administrative support services from Cisco Systems Capital Asia Pte. Ltd. ('CSC Singapore') and Cisco Systems Capital (Australia) Pty. Ltd. (`CSC Australia') ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s regarding disallowance of depreciation on assets leased out under finance lease agreement. He pointed out before us that in Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2013-14 in assessee s own case, in IT(TP)A Nos.219/Bang/2018 and 611/Bang/2016 dated 07.06.2019, the Tribunal has restored back similar matter to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication with a direction to the AO to examine the arguments entered into by the assessee in light of decision of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of ICDS Ltd., (SC) in Civil Appeal No.3282/2008 and he pointed out that paras 6 to 8 of this Tribunal order are relevant in this regard and he submitted a copy of this Tribunal order. He submitted that in the present year also, this issue should be restored back t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne with the direction of the Tribunal in Assessment Year 2011-12 as per the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for that year and for ready reference, we reproduce paras 6 to 8 of this Tribunal order: 6. The AO in this case has not followed the binding judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. V CIT [Civil Appeal No.3282 of 2008). He has from page 6 onwards in his order recorded views contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This cannot be approved. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. v. Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ors. in CA 3574 of 1998 dated October 27, ,2004. This judgment is not on the issue of claim of depre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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. 6. The AO should decide the issue regarding allowability of depreciation in the same line as per the direction of the Triubnal in Assessment Year 2011-12 as per paras 6 to 8 of that Tribunal order reproduced above. 7. Regarding TP issue also, this is the submission of the learned AR of the assessee before us that in Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12, similar matter is pending before DRP but since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
