9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mind the disclosures made, the delay of 166 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. ITA Nos. 288/2018, 348/2018, 364/2018, 915/2019 & 51/2023 1. The Principal Commissioner impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ["Tribunal"] dated 18 September 2017 and has proposed the following questions of law for our consideration: "A. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in deleting the addition made by the TPO/DRP on account of payment of service charges for intra-group services, holding that such payment was for commercial expediency? B. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the TPO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That then leads us to the question which is proposed in the context of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] and the meaning liable to be ascribed to the words "expansion" and "extension" of an existing business. We find that the same issue also arises in ITA 660/2018. This question would therefore merit further consideration. 5. Insofar as the issue of circuit accrual is concerned, we take note of the following conclusions which ultimately came to be recorded by the Tribunal: - "35. We find that the process explained IS entirely automated process which captures the details vis-a-vis each circuit, amount to be booked against each circuit and the accrual to be created. Further, assessee has been creating the provision on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and also on a proper scientific basis backed by documentation. Therefore, we hold that the circuit accruals are created on scientific basis and thus needs to be allowed in the year of creation on accrual basis. In the result the ground No. 6 of the appeal is allowed." 6. Bearing in mind the conclusions aforenoted, we find that the same would give rise to no substantial question of law. 7. We consequently admit these appeals on the following question: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs. 4,54,131 and Rs. 77,76,956 incurred on ECBs and short-term loans respectively, availed during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
