TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 40
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 43 Taxmann.com 150, found that the corporate and bank guarantee given by the assessee do not involve any cost to the assessee therefore, it is not an international transaction. This Tribunal has also observed that guarantee provided by the assessee does not have any bearing on profits, income, loss or assets of the assessee. Accordingly, this Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee. The ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi bench of this Tribunal in Bharti Airtel Ltd vs Addl. CIT in I.T.A.No. 5816/Mds/2012 dated 11.3.2014. 3. Shri Joe Sebastin, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that he is placing reliance on the orders of the DRP and TPO. 4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. The assessee provided corporate guarantee to its overseas subsidiaries. The TPO benchmarked the corporate guarantee at 1.5% by relying on the materials available on record. The DRP has also found that justification of the transaction on the ground of close relationship is self defeating the concept of Arm's Length Price(ALP). Accordingly, the DRP confirmed the view taken by the TPO. 5. We have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....observations made by the TPO and DRP. 10. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. For the assessment year 2009-10, an identical issue came up before this Tribunal with regard to adjustment of ALP towards payment of trademark licencee fee. This Tribunal found that there is nothing uncommon in assessee's making payment to the use of the trademark to M/s Redington Distribution Pte. Ltd, Singapore. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in S.A.Builders (supra), this Tribunal found that the expenditure is an allowable business expenditure. In view of the order of this Tribunal for the assessment year 2009-10, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. 11. The next issue arises for consideration is disallowance of depreciation on temporary structure. 12. Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 1,18,69,510/- on temporary structure like office cabins, wooden partitions, plastering, water proofing treatment, installation charges, flooring charges etc. However, the DRP f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iven credit and the assessee claimed rebate, it is not necessary for deduction of tax. In respect of other items which was given credit, according to the ld. Counsel, the assessee has deducted tax. 17. The ld. DR placed his reliance on the observations made by the TPO and DRP. 18. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. Though the assessee claims that in respect of the credit given to M/s Microsoft Corporation, tax was deducted, it is not clear from the order of the lower authority that tax was deducted. It is also not clear the returns made by the assessee to M/s Microsoft Corporation. The DRP has simply placed its reliance on their earlier order dated 30.9.2010. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that in the absence of any details with regard to the credit given by the assessee and the so called returns made by the assessee to M/s Microsoft Corporation, the liability of the assessee to deduct tax cannot be decided. Moreover, the copy of the order of the DRP dated 30.9.2010 on which the DRP placed its reliance is not available on record, therefore, this Tribunal is not in a position to decide o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the debt has become bad. Since the Parliament has made a change in the enactment with effect from 1.4.1989, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt has become bad. What is required is that the debt has to be written off in the books of account of the assessee for the previous year as irrecoverable and subject to fulfilling the conditions u/s 36(2)of the Act, the same has to be allowed. It is nobody's case that the debt which was claimed as written off was not included as income in the previous year. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the lower authorities are not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, the order of the lower authorities are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim of the assessee. 24. The next ground of appeal is with regard to disallowance of expenditure for earning exempt income. 25. Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s 14A to the extent of Rs. 1,88,245/-. Referring to the order of the DRP, the ld. Counsel submitted th....