2015 (9) TMI 1518

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... correct in setting aside the issue relating to disallowance u/s. 14A holding that Rule 8D is applicable w.e.f. A. Y. 2007-08 based on the judgment of this Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (2010) 234 CTR 1 (Bom) when the method prescribed in Rule 8D is held as a reasonable method in the same judgment? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the issue relating to disallowance u/s. 14A worked out as per Rule 8D based on judgment of this Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (2010) 234 CTR 1 (Bom) when the department has not accepted this judgment and SLP has been filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court? (c) Whether the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Respondent-Assessee as a part of its turnover. This even though Duty Drawback was considered in the case of comparables to enhance its turnover. Thus, on the above account, the Assessing Officer made a Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs. 2.41 Crores. 6 In appeal, the CIT(A) did not disturb the order of the Assessing Officer adopting the TNMM. However, he noted that the turnover of the Comparable companies included the export benefits such as DEPB, while the benefit of DEPB obtained by the Respondent-Assessee was ignored. Consequently, the comparison of prices between the Respondent and the Comparable companies was skewed. On facts, CIT(A) in its order dated 25th November, 2013 held that if the DEPB benefits are considered as part of the ....