2013 (5) TMI 638

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as 'the learned CIT(A)'], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') and based on the facts and circumstances of the case, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as a Successor of Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York [hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant'] respectfully submits that the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assistant Director of Income-tax (International Taxation)-3(1), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Assessing Officer'], thereby disposing the appeal of the Appellant on the following grounds. 1. In confirming the arm's length price computed by the learned Assessing Officer for the transaction in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide this appeal according to law. 2. The facts are that in the instant year there was a merger of the assessee with M/s Chase Manhattan Bank w.e.f. 10.11.2001. The Chase Manhattan Bank Changed its name to JP Morgon Chase Bank as per the approval received from RBI. Accordingly the accounts have been prepared from 01.04.01 to 09.11.2001. 3. The assessee is a banking company and incorporated in the USA and its India operation are conducted through its branch in Mumbai. In the year under consideration, the assessee entered into various international transactions, as per the details filed in the report in Form no. 3CEB. Hence, the case was referred to the TPO to determine ALI, who sent the order under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is analysis, according to the AR was completely ignored by the TPO & subsequently, even by the AO. 7. The AR submitted that the assessee vide its letter dated 17.03.2005 to the AO, wherein complete details was filed. However, the AO, without conducting any independent analysis, placed reliance on the TPO's order. 8. The AR also pointed out that in the same letter to the AO, the assessee had referred to the HO expenses as well, wherein, an addition of Rs. 43,64,967/- was made, which also was ignored. 9. The AR, therefore, prayed that the addition had been made without considering the details filed before the revenue authorities. On 13.05.2013, the assessee also filed additional evidence vide letter dated 07.05.2013, wherein, the AR ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i)(vii). Consequentially, the additional evidence, as filed by the assessee, is admitted. Complete evidence, shall now be used by both the parties to rely and support case. In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the direction is given to the AO to frame the assessment afresh de novo, needless to mention adequate and reasonable opportunity shall be given to the assessee, by the AO. 12. The appeal is therefore allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 1563/Mum/2008, Revenue's appeal : 13. The department has filed the appeal against the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c), wherein the sole effective ground been taken by the revenue reds as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the c....