TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cided by Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 12/09/2011, against which revenue has preferred an appeal which is ITA No.8049/Mum/2011. Against other assessment order Ld. CIT(A) has passed another order dated 16/12/2011, against which the revenue ha filed ITA No.1322/Mum/2012. Grounds of appeal in both the appeals read as under. Grounds of Appeal In ITA No.8049/MUM/2011: 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to interpret the provisions of section 92C(2) of the Income Tax Act, in its right perspective and the true meaning". 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the benefit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss objections filed by the assessee are belated by 506 days. An application dated 23/05/2013 has also been filed by the assessee requesting for condonation of delay. The reasons stated by the assessee for delay in filing of cross objections are that amendment to second provision to section 92C by Finance Act 2012 is retrospective w.e.f. 1/04/2002 and as assessee was satisfied with the relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A) it did not prefer an appeal. The aforementioned retrospective amendment has given reason to the assessee to file the cross objections. The other reasons given are as under: (ii) Special Bench judgment in the case of M/s. IHG IT Services (India) Vs. Income Tax Officer wherein it was held that the bene....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the cross objections only in May 2013 and there is no explanation for delay in filing the cross objections for one year after the date of amendment. He submitted that sub-section (2A) of section 92C has clarified that first proviso to sub section (2) as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act 2009 is applicable in respect of international transactions for the assessment year and the variation between arithmetical mean referred to in the said proviso and the price at which such transaction has actually been undertaken exceeds 5% of the arithmetical mean, then, the assessee shall not be entitled to exercise the option as referred to in the said proviso. Therefore, Ld. DR pleaded that revenue's appeal in ITA No.8049/Mum/2011....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction. After giving such relief Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the balance addition on TP issue which is a sum of Rs.5,70,304/-. As per aforementioned amendment which is made applicable w.e.f. 1/4/2002, if TP adjustment exceeds safe harbour of 5%, then assessee shall not be entitled to claim that relief as standard deduction. The aforementioned amendment has been brought by Finance Act, 2012. The benefit of amendment was not available when Ld. CIT(A) has passed this order. In view of availability of relief of 5% as standard deduction the assessee may not have preferred other grounds on which such addition could be agitated. Probably for that reason assessee may not have preferred to file appeal against the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A). The assessee ....