2015 (10) TMI 1387

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to the Associated Enterprises of the assessee and in making addition of the same to returned income. 2.2 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had advanced interest free loans to its Associate Enterprise. The opening balance was USD 675000. During the year, further advance of USD 300000 and USD 800000 had been received leaving the cash balance of USD 175000 at the end of the year. The auditors report in Form No. 3CEB as required u/s 92E of the I.T. Act was enclosed alongwith return of income. These International Transactions with the Associate Enterprise were referred to Transfer Pricing Officer u/s 92CA of the Act. The TPO's order was also confronted with the assessee which has been enclosed as per Annexure -A of the order ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vs. DCIT (2010) 37 SOT 358 (Delhi). The AO had called for objections against the draft order passed on 29-12-2010 from the assessee. The assessee filed the objection before the Draft Resolution Panel-1 (for short 'DRP), New Delhi on 27-01-2011. The DRP passed the order on 12-09-2011 and directed the TPO to work out the interest @ 11.40% as against 14% charged by her on the BBB Bonds. In pursuance to the said directions of the DRP, the TPO vide order u/s 144C(5) dated 13-10-2011 worked out the interest which amounted to Rs. 35,88,640/- as against Rs. 44,07,095/- worked out by her vide order u/s 92CA(3) dated 29-10-2010. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 35,88,640/- was made to the total income of the assessee. 2.3 Being aggrieved by the or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isk as the assessee has indirect control on it. Further LIBOR + nominal adjustment has been upheld by various ITAT Benches as reasonable. Therefore, we find that interest rate proposed by the assessee @ 8.90% is reasonable as against 11.40% decided by DRP. Accordingly, the assessee gets the partial relief. 3.1 The ground no. 2 of the assessee is that the AO is not justified in disallowing the belated payment of PF and ESI of Rs. 5,00,941/- and in making addition of the same to returned income. 3.2 The facts of the case in brief are that the AO has made an addition of Rs. 5,00,941/- by disallowing the employees contribution towards PF of Rs. 4,17,348/- and ESI contribution of Rs. 83,593/- which had been deposited in Govt. account after....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the appeal in the case of CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the SLP in the case of CIT vs Vinay Cement 313 ITR 1 (St.). While dismissing the SLP, the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to decision of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs George Williamson (Assam) Ltd., 284 ITR 619. In the case before Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, the issue was in respect of contribution of PF and ESI relating to employees shares. It is noticed from the audit report that all the payments have been paid before the due date of filing of return and therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not deleting the sum of Rs. 150,294/-. The same is deleted.'' Hence, in view of the facts and circums....