Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2016 (8) TMI 1157

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rred in law as well as on the fact and circumstances of the ca e. b) reducing the cost base of the assessee as determined by the TPO." 3.2 "The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case. in disturbing the cost base as directed by the TPO without assigning any reason thereof." 3.3. "The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case, in agreeing for partial inclusion of clearing charges and foreign exchange loss and excluding expenses such as repair and maintenance, electricity. insurance and depreciation on other a sets. 4.1 "The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case by excluding two comparable companies i.e. M/s. Punit Commercial Ltd. and M/s. Goldiam International Ltd. without assigning any reason thereof." 4.2. "The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case will excluding high margin comparables without considering negative margin and low margin comparables also and further erred in excluding comparables selected by the assessee itself. 4.3 "The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing recent, must be followed as the facts therein are similar to that of the case of assessee. 6. On the contrary, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd., has been set aside to the Ld. A.O. for verification. He placed his reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya bank versus CIT and Anr., (supra) which has been followed subsequently by Hon'ble Supreme Court, various High Courts and Coordinate benches of this Tribunal. He submitted that it is a settled law as far as principles relating to writing off of debts are concerned. 7. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee during the relevant previous year has made provision for doubtful debts and provision for doubtful advances. He submitted that these debts and advances were doubtful of recovery, which were identified by the assessee and duly provided for in the books of accounts by debiting to profit and loss account and the same has been shown reduced from the amount of debtors and advances shown under the head current assets appearing in the audited balance sheet for the respective year (relevant pages 20, 24, 27 of the paper book). H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... be entitled to the benefit of deduction under section 36(1)(vii), as there is an actual write off by the assessee in his books. Disallowance cannot be made on an apprehension that in the assessee failed to close each and even individual account of its debtor, it may result in the assessee claiming deduction twice over. Held, on the facts, that the assessee was entitled to the deduction claimed because: (i) the head office accounts of the assessee clearly indicated that on repayment in subsequent years the amounts were duly offered for tax; (ii) that wider accountancy practice the accounts of the rural branches had to tally with the accounts of the head office, and if the amount repaid in subsequent years is not credited to the profit and loss account of the head office and if the repaid amount in subsequent years is not credited to the profit and loss account of the head office, which was what mattered ultimately, then there would be a mismatch between the rural branch accounts and the head office accounts; (iii) in any event under section 41(4), where deduction had been allowed in respect of a bad debt or a part thereof under section 36(1)(vii) then if the amount subsequ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st Plus 29,24,725 3 Coating of raw beads Cost Plus 57,598,485 4 Commission received CUP 28,64,459 5 ECB loan CUP 59,60,300 6 Provision of EDP procurement & support services CUP 30,72,651 7 Purchase of chemicals and other consumables Cost Plus 7,84,646 8 Import of communication materials Cost Plus 58,28,599 9 Reimbursement of Training expenses Cost Plus 3,59,118 9.3 There is no dispute with respect to the determination of Arm's Length Price in respect of the International Transactions with its AE on Coating of Raw Beeds. Assessee chose cost plus method as the most appropriate method for the purposes of determination of arm's length price of the international transaction pertaining to the activity of purchase of consumables and job work charges received and the assessee calculated a gross markup of 120.94% on the direct and indirect processing cost. The Ld. TPO recomputed the cost base by taking certain overhead expenses such as repairs and maintenance, electricity, insurance and depreciation as a part of the indirect cost of production for the purposes of CPM analysis which is as under: Cost....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he aforesaid allocation of expenses of Pune unit and therefore, the cost base calculated by the Ld. TPO has to be upheld in respect of determination of arms length price of the ld.TPO rejected to companies with abnormal high gross profit margin which was included by the assessee in its TP study. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given proper reasoning for including the 2 comparables for the purposes of determining the arms length price. Ld. DR placed his reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chrys Capital Investment Advisers (India) (P) Ltd vs. DCIT, reported in (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 417, wherein it has been held that; "...... mere fact that an entity makes high/extremely high profits/losses does not, ipso facto, lead to its exclusion from list of comparables for the purposes of determination of a LP as in such circumstances and enquiry under rule 10 B (3) ought to be carried out to data mine as to whether material differences between the assessee and the said entity can be eliminated and unless such differences cannot be eliminated, entity has to be included as a comparable." 9.9 On the contrary the Ld. AR referred to and relied u....