TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 434
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice u/s 142(1). The draft order was made on 31.12.2010 at total income of Rs. 17,66,84,460. The assessee objected the draft order. The objections were heard by the DRP-I, New Delhi. Finally order u/s 143(3) read with section 144(c) of the Act was passed on 24.10.2011. Determining the total income at Rs. 14,56,46,530/-. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. As mentioned earlier, ground Nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature. In ground No. 1 it is mentioned that the order passed by the TPO, the draft order passed by the AO and the final order passed by the AO in pursuance of the directions of Ld. DRP are bad in law. In ground No. 2 it is mentioned that the AO erred in determining the total income at Rs. 14,56,46,530/- against the returned income of Rs. 30,64,480/-. These ground are general in nature and they were not argued by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Therefore, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 4. In ground Nos. 3 to 7, various averments have been made against enhancement of the income by an amount of Rs. 13,54,69,266/- on account of "transfer pricing adjustment" made in respect of international transactions with associated enterprise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and also otherwise we are of the view that any information obtained in the course of assessment proceedings has to be supplied to the assessee for its objections, if any. The absence of doing so leads to violation of fundamental principle of natural justice. In view thereof, the matter is restored to the file of the AO with a direction to supply whatsoever information he wants to use against the assessee to it, grant it reasonable opportunity of being heard and thereafter pass a fresh assessment order as per law." 4.2.1 As a view has already been taken by the Tribunal in the aforesaid case and in the case of Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 5694/Del/2011 for assessment year 2007-08 dated 26.3.2012, we are bound the follow the view. Therefore, it is held that it was incumbent on the AO to supply the information to the assessee, obtain its objections, if any, and pass order after taking into account the information and the objections of the assessee. This has not been done in respect of 20 comparables. Therefore, the matter of transfer pricing adjustment is restored to the file of the AO for following proper procedure as mentioned above and decide the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....between the business of undertaking and the profit. In the alternative, it is argued that the claim on account of fluctuation in rate of foreign exchange is in the revenue field as it is relates to export proceeds. Further, in earlier years provisions were made which were found to be in excess of the actual liability by an amount of Rs. 38,532/-. The miscellaneous income is also the income derived from the business of the undertaking. 5.2 In reply, the Ld. CIT(DR) submitted that since the major issue regarding transfer pricing adjustment is to be decided denovo by the AO, this matter may also be restored to his file. In particular, it was mentioned by her that exact details are not available. 5.3 In the rejoinder reply, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the issue is clear and the basis of deduction is same as u/s 80HHC. There is ample authority under that section that proximate connection is not required to be established between the business and the income and the same has to be computed as the profit is computed under the business head. 5.4 We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. There is no dispute that foreign exchange fluctuation g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use the main issue of pricing adjustment is being restored to his file. 6.2 We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. We find that the first expenditure of Rs. 37,584/- is on purchase of door access controller, proximity readers units for central access control panel and power supply units. These are new items and therefore represent capital expenditure. The second expenditure of Rs. 14,09,610/- is for obtaining electrical connection. It is seen from the corresponding order that 600 KVA load was served on 24.8.2006. In this connection security deposit of Rs. 13.16 lacs was paid alongwith supervision charges and system loading charges. The assessee has claimed expenditure only in respect of supervision charges and system loading charges. The expenditure is in the nature of initial expenditure granting benefit of enduring nature to the assessee. Without initialization of electricity connection, no work can be done in office. Therefore, we are of the view that the expenditure is capital in nature. The third expenditure of Rs. 47,942/- is on purchase of carpets which is obviously a capital expenditure as a new asset has been created. Similarly 4th expe....