2012 (9) TMI 445

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the report submitted by the Transfer Pricing Officer?" 2. However, we did not admit the appeal of the Revenue on the question whether 10% of the sales promotion and the advertisement expenditure was incurred to give advantage and benefit to the principal/parent company and, therefore, was not allowable as a deduction. 3. The present application has been filed, inter alia, stating that in the assessment year 2005-06, three more issues were raised vide questions (D) to (H) and for the assessment year 2006-07, two more issues were raised vide questions (D) to (F). The said questions read as under:- Assessment Year 2005-06 "(D) Whether the Tribunal erred in allowing a deduction of exp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibunal erred in allowing depreciation in respect of UPS @ 60% treating the same as computers? 4. Our order dated 20th March, 2012, does not refer to these three/two issues and, therefore, we had issued notice to the respondents-assessee. It appears that these issues were not specifically argued but this is not so stated or recorded in the said order. In these circumstances, we have heard the learned counsel for the applicant on the aforesaid three/two issues. 5. Regarding applicability of Rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 to expenditure incurred and subject matter of Section 35DDA of the Income Tax Act, 196, we are entirely in agreement with the findings recorded by the tribunal in paragraph 6.3. 6. Rule 2BA is in the form of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eciation was not only allowed in respect of UPS but also in respect of printers, switches etc. The second issue, therefore, does not require interference in exercise of power under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. The third issue relates to deduction of 1/5th of the expenses relating to legal and professional expenses relating to closure of the Daruhera unit. This issue has been raised in the assessment year 2005-06 and not in the assessment year 2006-07, though the tribunal has directed that 1/5th of such expenses incurred will be allowed in each of the assessment year. Thus, the direction of the tribunal has the revenue effect and is applicable to the assessment year 2005-06 also. The tribunal in paragraph 7.3 and 7.4 has d....