TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 732
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Revenue has filed appeals for assessment years 2002- 03 and 2007-08 and the assessee has filed appeal for assessment year 2009-10. Therefore, we heard all these appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order. 2. Shri G. Ravi Kumar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee-company is a joint venture company of M/s JBM-Sung woo Private Limited. The assessee is engaged itself in the business of manufacturing and sale of sheet metal components, assemblies and sub-assemblies and supplying them to Hyundai Motors India Ltd. The assessee has paid 4% as service charges for the service rendered by the parent company. The parent company offered services in management and administration, right from the high level....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Panel, according to the Ld. counsel, is not justified in confirming the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer. 4. We have heard Smt. Vijayalakshmi, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee has not received any service from the parent company. Referring to the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel, the Ld. D.R. clarified that no evidence was filed before the Transfer Pricing Officer as well as DRP with regard to the services said to be rendered by the parent company. Referring to the directions of the DRP, the Ld. D.R. submitted that it appears that the parent company has done liaison work with Chinese authorities. If this is true, then the Indian company is not expected to make any payment for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. The DRP further found that the contribution said to be made by the joint venture partners to the sales of the existing business of the assessee-company was not available on record. In the absence of any material to indicate that services were rendered by the joint venture company, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the DRP has rightly confirmed the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. 6. Now coming to Revenue's appeals for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2007-08 in I.T.A. Nos.1692 & 1693/Mds/2014, the only ground is with regard to disallowance of payment of royalty. 7. Shri Duraip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee has not acquired the intellectual property. The Ld.counsel further clarified that the right to use the technology and the information was for a prescribed period and it is not for perpetual. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the right to use technology for manufacturing a product does not result in enduring benefit to the assessee. The right to use the technology would not make the assessee-company the owner of the technology, therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the royalty paid by the assessee is a business expenditure for the purpose of carrying out the business. Hence, according to the Ld. counsel, it has to be allowed as revenue expenditure. 9. Referring to the directions of DRP for the assessment year 2009-10,....