TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 363
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent to AEs of the assessee at NIL. 2.1 On this issue at the outset Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favor of the assessee by the order of the ITAT in assessee's own case for asstt. year 2004-05 and 2005-06 on similar facts. Ld. DR could not controvert the submissions of the assessee. Upon careful consideration, we note that on the issue pertaining to Arm's Length Price (ALP) of royalty payment the issue has been adjudicated by the tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 3287/Del/2011 and 5546/Del/2112 for Asstt. year 2004-05 and 2005-06 vide order dated 6.5.2014. The Tribunal has dealt with the issue as under:- "5.11 Facts and circumstances of this TP adjustments are similar to AY 2004-05, Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the royalty was uncalled for. 5.14 After hearing the parties and on perusal of the record in our considered view no interference is called for in the order passed by the CIT(A) on this issue and the appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2005-06 is dismissed." 2.2 Since there is no dispute, that the facts in the present cases are similar to the one dealt with by the Tribunal as aforesaid, the issue herein has to be decided in favor of the assessee. Respectfully, following the precedent as above, we set aside the order of the AO and decide the issue in favor of the assessee. 3. Another common issue raised in A.Y. 2006-07 and 2008-09 pertains to the disallowance of contribution to Group Gratuity Fund The assessee has taken a scheme from LIC of Gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal is dismissed. 3.1 Since in this case assessee had made the payment to the LIC and the payments were made before the filing of the Income Tax Return. Hence, respectfully following the precedent as above, we hold that the claim of the assessee is allowable. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the AO and decide the issue in favor of the assessee. 4. Another issue raised in A.Y. 2006-07 is that addition of Rs. 77,789/- on account of alleged difference in the balance of one of the parties is bad in law. On this issue AO noted that assessee company was asked to provide balance confirmation from the creditors. In the credit balance confirmation provided by one party M/s Sanden Vikas India Ltd., there was a difference of Rs. 77,789/-. AO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igarh Special Bench). The assessee explained that as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. Union of India 106 ELT 3 (Supreme Court), the Modvat Credit available to the assessee has been set off. The same is treated as payment. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments have held that Modvat credit is to be treated as excise duty paid, so this issue is covered by these judgments in favor of the assessee. - CIT vs. Shriram Honda Equipment Ltd. 353 ITR 481 (SC). - CIT vs. Indo Nippon Chemicals Ltd. 161 ITR 275 (SC) - CIT vs. Modipan Ltd. 303 ITR 438 (Del.) - CIT vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. 255 CTR 140 (Del.) The assessee filed evidence to prove that assessee actually utilized Modvat till 3rd May, 2006 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 Hence, principally we are in agreement with the proposition that amount of excise duty adjusted against the Modvat available before the due date of filing of income tax return has to be treated as payment made u/s. 43B and the same is allowable. Hence, we remit this issue to the file of the AO. The Assessing Officer shall examine the adjustments of excise duty with the Modvat credit available and accordingly allow the assessee's claim, as per the exposition arising out of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision as above. In the result, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Another common issue raised is that the addition of Rs. 21,48,535/- u/s. 40A(2)() of the I.T. Act is bad in law and is against the order of the ITAT in the assess....