Appeal dismissed due to non-compliance with tax law, various claims allowed, transfer pricing additions deleted.

The appeal challenging the validity of the order under the Income-tax Act was dismissed by the Tribunal due to non-compliance with section 144C. The claim of Education Cess and depreciation on premises expenditure were allowed based on precedents. Transfer pricing additions for Royalty and Indenting Commission were deleted following favorable precedents. Capitalization of software expenses was accepted, while capitalization of premises expenditure was upheld. Disallowance of Miscellaneous expenses and Commission addition were partly allowed, aligning with past decisions.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Validity of the order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Claim of Education Cess.
3. Consequential claim of Depreciation on the Expenditure of Premises.
4. Confirmation of transfer pricing addition in respect of the international transaction of payment of Royalty.
5. Transfer pricing addition in the international transaction of Indenting Commission.
6. Capitalization of software expenses.
7. Capitalization of expenditure on the Premises.
8. Disallowance at 10% of Miscellaneous expenses.
9. Addition towards Commission at 7.5%.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the validity of the order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, citing non-compliance with the mandate of section 144C. However, the Tribunal dismissed these additional grounds based on a precedent where no demand notice was issued by the Assessing Officer, rendering the order not final. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.
2. The issue regarding the claim of Education Cess was decided in favor of the assessee based on a precedent in the assessee's own case for earlier years, allowing Education Cess on Income-tax paid as tax deductible expenses.
3. The claim for depreciation on the Expenditure of Premises was allowed following a decision in the assessee's favor for earlier assessment years, directing the grant of depreciation on premises expenditure held to be capital in nature.
4. The transfer pricing addition in the international transaction of payment of Royalty was deleted based on a precedent where the Tribunal had decided in favor of the assessee by deleting the transfer pricing addition on account of Royalty for preceding years.
5. Similarly, the transfer pricing addition in the international transaction of Indenting Commission was deleted following a precedent where the Tribunal had deleted the addition for earlier years, as the facts and circumstances were similar.
6. The capitalization of software expenses was not pressed by the appellant, as the expenditure was treated as capital expenditure and depreciation was allowed by the Assessing Officer.
7. Capitalization of expenditure on the Premises was upheld based on a precedent where the Tribunal had upheld capitalization of expenses in relation to premises at 40% for earlier years.
8. The disallowance at 10% of Miscellaneous expenses was upheld as the Assessing Officer made the addition based on unverified bills, similar to a decision in the assessee's own case for the preceding year.
9. The addition towards Commission at 7.5% was deleted following a precedent where the Tribunal had deleted such disallowance for earlier years. The appeal was partly allowed based on the above analysis.

---