TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 920
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reinafter referred to as "TPO") with identical direction. Attention was invited to the submissions advanced before the Co-ordinate Bench on 13.03.2015 in the stay No.-155/Del/2015 wherein considering these facts the Co-ordinate Bench passed the interim order on the said date. Referring to the typed copy available of the said interim order it was pointed out that on the said date also the Revenue was represented by the very same standing counsel and only after considering that facts and circumstances were identical, the Co-ordinate Bench was pleased to direct the fixation of the stay petition alongwith the appeal for hearing on 16.03.2015. Since the ld. Standing Counsel for the Revenue neither agreed nor objected to the prayer of the Ld. AR. In order to afford time to the Revenue, the ld. AR was required to file small synopsis for the benefit of the Revenue as the copy of the interim order dated 13.03.2015 was also not available with the Ld. Standing Counsel. The appeal was accordingly adjourned to 17.03.2015 so as to have the departmental response on the pleadings of the Ld. AR. 2. On the next date of hearing, the Ld. AR again relied upon the synopsis filed and made a similar pray....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....79 and is a key player in the Indian earthmoving and construction equipment industry. During the year under consideration w.e.f 1-4.2009 JCB Pune Merged with JCB India under the Hon'ble High Court's Approved scheme. The amalgamation scheme was duly approved by Hon'ble Mumbai High Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 5-2-2010 and 26-5-2010 respectively. It is seen that the TPO addressing the background of the JCB Group took note of the fact that it was promoted by Mr. Joseph Cyril Bamford for manufacturing construction and agriculture equipments in 1945. The JCB Group headquartered in United Kingdom and the ultimate holding company was Transmission and Engineering Services Netherlands BV. The JCB Group has been considered to be a major player in the global construction and agricultural equipment sectors and was one of the world's largest and most successful construction equipment groups. The Group is stated to having 17 manufacturing plants across the UK, the USA, India, China, Germany and South America and also is claimed to having subsidiaries in France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Singapore. The Group is found to having employed more than 6,000 people and man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of key parts were done by Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade marks of India in June 2005. In the circumstances were most of the key parts are registered in India, contribution of UK entity was considered to be minor as major part of designing of this "India specific product", it was concluded had been done in India. In view of these facts the TPO questioned the occasion to make royalty payments to JC Bamford. Thus relying on the reasons considered by the DRP in 2007-08 assessment year the TPO in the facts of the present case adopted the same reasoning leading to rejection of assessee's claim. 3.4. Pursuant to this adjustment of Rs. 137,46,72,552/-proposed by the TPO which subsequently was rectified u/s 154 r.w.s. 92CA(3) ultimately resulting in the addition of Rs. 1,23,11,07,201/- made by way of adjustment in terms of the direction of the DRP. 3.5. In the said factual background considering the consolidated order dated 18.09.2013 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench pertaining to 2006-07 to 2009-10 assessment years which order has been followed again by the Coordinate Bench in 2009-10 Assessment year ITA No.-1946/Del/2014 (wrongly mentioned as 2008-09 in the cause title ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. AO/Ld/ DRP has erred in rejecting the benefit of adjustment of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation to the extent of Rs. 34,53,80,569/- being difference of assessed losses and returned losses [i.e. Rs. 17,55,44,06,035- 1,41,00,65,466] without appreciating that the said difference is on account of additions which are pending adjudication in Appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. DRP has erred in making addition of Rs. 2,500/- on account of notional disallowance on investments by invoking Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D without appreciating that:- -The Appellant has not earned any exempt income during the year in question; - The Appellant has not incurred any expenditure towards earning the exempt income. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in not allowing the complete credit of taxes deducted at source without assigning any reason. 7. The ld. AO erred on facts and in law in charging interest under Section 234A, Section 234b, Section 234C and Section 234D of the Act. 8. The Ld. AO erred on facts and in law in ini....