TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 963
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 06, 70, 534 in view of the order of the learned CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2002-03 confirming the addition of Rs. 6, 06, 70, 534, being unutilised MODVAT credit as on March 31, 2002, to the value of closing stock. It is prayed that the learned AO be directed to increase the value of opening stock by unutilised MODVAT credit of Rs. 6, 06, 70, 534 added to the closing stock in Assessment Year 2002-03. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) legally erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC. It is prayed that the learned AO be directed to allow deduction under Section 80HHC as claimed by the appellant company. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) legally erred in not deleting the addition made by the learned AO on account of provision for doubtful debts for the purpose of computing the book profits under Section 115JB of the Act. It is prayed that the learned AO be directed to delete the addition of provision for doubtful debts while computing the book profits under Section 115JB of the Act. Reference to the TPO - mechanical in nature 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned AO be directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1, 30, 80, 722 made under Section 143(3) of the Act on the basis of the order passed by the TPO under Section 92CA(3) of the Act. 10. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has legally erred in confirming the learned AO's action of upholding the adjustment made by the learned TPO without appreciating that none of the conditions set out in Section 92C(3) of the Act supported by Circular 12 are satisfied in the instant case of export of Dicamba by the Appellant. It is prayed that the learned AO be directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1, 30, 80, 722. 11. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the learned AO's action of upholding the adjustment made by the learned TPO without appreciating the fact that the said addition (made in respect of export of Dicamba) cannot be considered as income of the Appellant. It is prayed that the learned AO be directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1, 30, 80, 722. Disallowance of payment of usage charges 12. Without prejudice to the above, on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....directing the A. O. to allow deduction u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act of employees contribution to P. F. paid within the grace period without appreciating the fact that due date is well defined in sec. 36(1)(va) and does not include grace period. 6. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in not confirming the addition of Rs. 2, 60, 65, 427/4- made by the A. O. towards increase in the valuation of closing stock to include MODVAT expenses 7. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in directing the A. O. to reduce the profits eligible for deduction u/s 80 HHC of the Act in computing the book profit u/s 1 15JB without appreciating the fact that in the regular computation, the CIT(A) has confirmed the A. O's finding that the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 80HCC of the Act. 8. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law CJT(A) erred in not confirming the disallowance of provision for doubtful debts amounting to Rs. 1 , 46, 43, 8161- made by the A. O. while computing book profit u/s 11 5JB of the Act. 9. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law CIT(A) erred in restricting to 40%....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly upon considering the unutilised Modvat Credit as per of the value of stock. As a result, an amount of Rs. 2. 60 Crores was added to the value of closing stock. 2. 1. Aggrived by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). He held that the assessee had argued that it had been following exclusive method of accounting for element of excise duty, that closing stock should not be increased by excise element, that the above argument advanced by the assessee could not be accepted, that law in terms of section 145A of the Act provided for specifie adjustments in respect of duties and taxes and to include dutues etc. for purpose of valuing inventories as well. He further held that the AO had made adjustment only in respect of closing stock to include duty and taxes without giving due effect to sales and purchases. For the purpose of determining the correct income as per the section 145A, he directed the AO to re-compute the income of the assessee after valuing the purchases, sales and inventories in line with the section 145A of the Act. 2. 2. Before us, Authorised Representative(AR)stated that the Tribunal vide order dated 30. 11. 2009....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the claim of deduction under Chapter VIA in view of provisions of Section 32(2) r. w. s. 72(2)of the Act, wherein the same was to be considered first before allowing any deduction u/s. 80HHC. He referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ipca Laboratories Limited(266 ITR 521)and held that while computing deduction u/s. 80HHC brought forward loss is to be reduced before claiming deduction, that the assessee's income became NIL after considering the unabsorbed brought forward depreciation it would not be entitled to any deduction u/s. 80HHC. In short, the claim of deduction u/s 80HHC was disallowed. He further held that the exporters having export turnover exceeding Rs. 10 Crores during the previous year had an option to choose either duty draw back or duty free replenishme certificate being duty Remission Scheme, that the assessee's export turnover exceeded Rs. 10 crores, that it did not fulfill the above mentioned conditions, that DEPB benefit could not be considered for working out deduction u/s. 80HHC. As such in view of NIL profit as discussed above the assessee company is not entitled for deduction u/s. 80HHC. 4. 1. In the appellate proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oceedings, the FAA held that the assessee had given the details of parties in respect of whom such provisions had been made, that the AO had made addition on wrong appreciation of facts. He directed the AO to verify the details of provisions for doubtful debts and take a decision accordingly. He partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. 2. Before us, the AR stated that the issue was decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in the AY. 2002-03(ITA2747/Mum/2006/dated 16. 07. 2010). But, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court delivered in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd. (204Taxman305). He also referred to order of the Tribunal decided in the case of Trent Ltd. (ITA1073&1708/Mum /2005). We find that the FAA had directed the AO make verification about the liabilities claimed by the assessee. He held that if the liabilities were ascertainable, he should allow the deduction and not otherwise. We are of the opinion, that there is perversity in the order of the FAA. It was duty of the assessee to prove before the AO that the liabilities in question were not unascertainable. The assessee before us has not demonstrated as to how he proved his clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ument that the price at which product was sold to subsidiary was comparable with uncontrolled price could not be accepted, that it could sell its product through subsidiary at higher price indicated that report of Mr. Buhn was only an eye wash and could not be relied upon, that Non USA sales was affected through London branch, that expenses of the said branch were incurred by the assessee company, that AE had incurred all the expenses related with sale, that the TPO should have considered the factor affecting such price, that the method adopted by the TPO in coming to the conclusion that price should have been the same as that of Non USA sales did not rest on sound footings, that geographical territory and quantity of sales also had a bearing on such pricing, that without considering such factors simply making comparison of two prices suffered inborn infirmity and had to be corrected, that resale price method was one of the approved method of determining the ALP, that it could not be out rightly rejected, that the AO should also have considered the resale price method. Finally, partly allowing the appeal, the FAA directed the AO to restrict restrict the addition to 40% of Rs, 3, 27....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usages charges of registration rights. This ground is also related to TP adjustment. The TPO had determined the ALP of the amount in question at Rs. Nil. He observed that the assessee had not filed details in this regard. But, he held that if the assessee submitted evidences, ALP would be modified. The AO had passed the order as suggested by the TPO. In the appellate proceedings, the FAA directed the AO to verify the details of sales and payment made on the basis of the details given by the assessee. 7. 1. Before us, the AR stated that while giving effect to the order of the FAA , the AO had verified the claim made by it and had allowed it. We have gone through the order of the AO dated . We find that he has in the order giving effect to the order of the allowed the claim. Therefore, there is no reason for grievance by the assessee. In these circumstances, ground no. is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee, is about claim made by the assessee u/s. 35(2AB)of the Act. In the return of income filed by it for the year it claimed a deduction for 100% of the expenditure incurred by it which qualified for deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the FAA. Folliwng the order for the AY. 2001-02 of his predecssor, the FAA decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 9. 2. Before us, Representatives of both the sides agreed that the issue is covered by the order of the Tribunal for the earlier years. (ITA/2146-47/M/2007/-dated 12. 12. 2008, AY. 2000-01, 2001-02. ). We have heard the rival submission. We find that in the earlier years identical issue had arisen in the appeal filed by the AO and the Tribuanl had held as under: "6. We have heard the learned representatives of the parties and perused the record. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Core Health Ltd . ( supra ) , on which the asses see has placed reliance . We respectfully follow the law laid down by the Hon'be Supreme Court in the said case and in the light of that we confirm the orders of the CIT(A) in both the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02. " Respectfully following the above, we decide ground. no. 1-3 against the AO. 10. Ground no. 4-5 are about delay in depositing contribution to Provident Fund(PF)account un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. (ITA 1002 of 2012 dated 14. 10. 2014). DR left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. 10. 3. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that in the matter of Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the decision of Alom Extrusion(319ITR 306) delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was applicable of employer's contribution as well as to the employees' contribuntion. We find that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the matter of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, after extensively considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Alom Extrusion(supra), has held if the assessee had not credited the employees' contribution to the employees' account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date mentioned in the Explanation to section 36(1)(va) , the assessee would not be entitled to deduction of such amount in computing the income referred to in Sec. 28(366 ITR 170). It was submitted by Ld DR that the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court when the appeal in the case of Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. was being heard. But, as on ....