TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 1539
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome-tax Appellate Tribunal is to be modified. 2. We have heard the learned counsel and the learned Departmental representative. 3. The first contention raised by the assessee is with reference to the issue of local doctors' meeting expenses/individual doctor's services. This issue was decided in ground No. 5 at paragraph 11 of the impugned order. For the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee incurred expenditure on local doctors meeting and individual doctor's expenses and the same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The Dispute Resolution Panel approved the action of the Assessing Officer and the assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal following its own order for the assessment yea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order of the Tribunal, we do not see any reason to modify the directions. Clearly in paragraphs 11.2 and 11.3 of the order, the issue was set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the same under section 37(1), whether it was incurred for the purpose of business or not. The observations in paragraph 11.4 has no bearing at all. However, by the Code of Ethics Regulations, 2002, expenditure on the doctors became unethical in the hands of doctors and it is stated so. However, whether the said expenditure is for the purpose of business or not is entirely a different aspect. Therefore, those observations will not have any binding on the issue. The claim of expenditure has to be examined vis-a-vis the provisions of section 37(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Prestige Foods Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 81 CCH 31 (MP) ; [2012] 70 DTR (MP) 425 has upheld the apportionment of expenditure between the two units based on turnover. 8. After considering rival contentions, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal on the issue. In fact vide paragraph 12.5 of the order, the directions of the Tribunal in the assessment year 2003-04 in the assessee's own case were extracted and accordingly the matter was set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to re-examine the claim on similar lines. The issue originally arose in the assessment year 2003-04 and accordingly following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench allocation on the basis of turnover ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is directed to be examined by the Assessing Officer and allocated to various units on the basis of turnover, we do not see any reason to differ from the order of the Tribunal. This contention of the assessee is accordingly rejected. 9. The third contention raised in the miscellaneous application is with reference to rate of interest to be charged on loans granted to associated enterprises. This issue was considered as ground No. 16 in the impugned order. The Transfer Pricing Officer made the adjustment and determined the arm's length price of interest rate at 14 per cent., which was upheld by the Dispute Resolution Panel. The contention before the Tribunal was that since loans were given in foreign currency, LIBOR linked interest rate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e are other judgments also where 6 per cent. interest received was considered as LIBOR + 157 base points, so, 7 per cent. interest rate approved would be about LIBOR + 257 base points. The co-ordinate Benches are approving on different factual situation, LIBOR + 1 per cent. to 3 per cent. and considering that, we also feel that 7 per cent. rate is reasonable which is equivalent to LIBOR + 2 per cent. Be that as it may, since the assessee has accepted 7 per cent. in the earlier year and that is the basis for directing to adopt 7 per cent. by the Tribunal, we do not see any reason to modify the directions of the Tribunal in this regard. Accordingly, this contention of the assessee is rejected. 12. 4th contention raised in the miscellaneous a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elaborately discussed and decided, therefore, the Tribunal did not have power to review its own order. 14. We have considered the contentions. This issue was elaborately discussed from paragraphs 3.2 to 3.4 of the order and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal did not allow the claim of revised return as time limit prescribed under the Income-tax Act has already expired. As seen from the ground, the assessee's contention was only for acceptance of the revised return and not for considering the issue on merits whether losses/effect of merger should be considered in assessment. Since the ground is only with reference to consideration of revised return and not for the information therein, the Tribunal restricted itself to acceptance of revis....