TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 1139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4,310/-. In the appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds : "General Grounds 1. That the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) / Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in computing the total income of the Appellant at Rs. 343,103,020/- as against the returned income of Rs. 129,003,431/-. 2. That the DRP/Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) erred in making an adjustment of Rs. 217,399,859/- under section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") in respect of the "advertising and marketing expenses"(AMP expenses) incurred by the Appellant for its own business purposes. Transfer pricing grounds 3. That the Ld. TPO/AO/DRP erred in segregating "AMP transaction" after having accepted the arm's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is whatsoever. Corporate tax ground 10. The Ld. AO has erred on facts and in law in not following the directions of DRP to correct the amount of claim of warranty expense made by the appellant with respect to the warranty provision while computing the taxable profits during the financial year. Common ground 11. Ld. AO has erred, in charging interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act. 12. That on facts and in laws, the Ld. AO erred in holding that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of each item of disallowance/ additions and in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act." 2. Ground no. 1 and 2 are general in nature a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1,23,76,838/- on T.P.Adjustment in draft assessment order. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO also noticed that the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 82,399/- on account of SAD written off. When confronted to explain the claim, the assessee submitted that the similar disallowance was made in the assessment year 2010-11 which was confirmed by the DRP. The AO therefore, made the similar disallowance for this year also. The AO proposed the draft assessment order and recomputed the income at Rs. 105,03,22,510/- as under :- Total Income as per return filed 33,78,63,271/- Add:- Transfer Pricing Adjustment 71,23,76,838/- Disallowance of SAD written off 82,399/- Total Income 1,05,03,22,508/- Tota....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quent to the said decision the Hon'ble Jurisdictional H.C. in the case of Whirlpool of India vs. DCOT in I.T.A. 228/2015 & C.M.No. 5751/2015 order dated 22.12.2015 and in the case of Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. A.C.I.T. in I.T.A. No. 643 & 675/14 order dated 23.12.2015 examined this aspect and applied the same principle to distribution business as well. It was further submitted that DRP and the TPO failed to give any cogent reason for de-bundling the AMP function of the assessee as a separate transaction which is in violation of the principles laid down in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd reported at (2015) 55 Taxman.com.240(Del.) (Supra). 7. In his rival submissions, the ld. DR although supp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eem it appreciate to set aside the issue relating to the adjustment on account of AMP to the file of the TPO/AO to be decided afresh in accordance with the law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. The next issue vide ground no. 10 relates to the claim of warranty expenses. The only grievance of the assessee relating to this issue is that the AO has not followed the directions given by the DRP while deciding this issue. It is noticed that the objection of the assessee before the DRP was that the AO had not corrected the claim of warranty expenses made by the assessee with respect to the warranty provisions while computing the taxable process. The DRP directed the AO to verify and correct, if an....