TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1352
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in manufacturing of variety of confectionary products from its factories in Tamil Nadu, Haryana and Uttarakhand. The assessee e-filed its return of income on 29th September, 2009 showing the total income of Rs. 13,19,79,440/-. Draft assessment order u/s 144C was passed on 6th March, 2013, proposing transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 163,04,12,982/- to the income of the assessee. The assessee filed objections before the ld. DRP-III, Delhi, which vide its order dated 18.12.2013, confirmed the additions as proposed in the draft order. Accordingly, the assessee's total income was determined u/s 143(3) read with section 144C at Rs. 176,23,92,422/-. The assessee preferred a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition of Rs. 205,31,96,324/- on account of determination of ALP of AMP expenses. The Assessing Officer also denied the deduction u/s 80IC in view of the direction contained in the order of ld. Principal CIT, passed u/s 263 of the Act, dated 14.12.2016 u/s 143(3) read with section 263. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us and has taken the following grounds of appeal:- "Without prejudice to the appeal filed by the appellant before Punjab & Haryana High Court in relation to the assessment year under consideration, the appellant submits the following grounds of appeal which are mutually exclusive of and without prejudice to each other. 1. That Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") / Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TPO")/ Disput....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whisper on 14 factors relating to comparables, direct selling expenses have not been excluded and Gross profit margin has been used to mark-up for computing the adjustment thus completely disregarding directions of Hon'ble Tribunal dated 15.04.2014 while remanding the matter to decide afresh. 6. That DRP/ TPO/ AO have erred in treating expenses incurred by Appellant towards AMP as an 'international transaction', disregarding guidelines of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Whirlpool of India Ltd., Bausch & Lomb Eye Care India Pvt. Ltd and Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., which dealt with similar facts in case of manufacturers. 7. That DRP/ TPO/ AO completely failed to establish existence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issues are covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2011-12 vide ITA No.789/Del/2016, wherein the Tribunal has remanded both the issues to the file of Assessing Officer as follows:- "8. We have heard both the sides and perused all the records. The issues involved in these particular appeals are three folds. Ground No. 2 to 13 is related to AMP adjustment of Rs.146.19 crores, Ground No. 14 to 25 is related to denial of deduction u/s 80IC of Rs.102.31 crores and Ground Nos. 26 & 27 are related to disallowance of depreciation to the extent of capital subsidy Rs.13.12 lakhs. The assessee is engaged in manufacturing of various confectionary products and is a subsidiary of PVM, Italy. The assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts now available for consideration, in some of which the transaction of AMP expenses has been held as an international transaction, in others as not an international transactions, while still in some others, the matter has been restored for fresh consideration in the light of the judgment in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del), in which the AMP expenses as an international transaction has been accepted. In another judgment dated 28.1.2016 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sony Ericson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. (for A.Y. 2010-11), the question as to whether AMP expenses is an international transaction, has been restored for a fresh determination. There are three recent judgmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in such fresh proceedings. Thus, Ground No. 2 to 13 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8.2. As relates to benefit of deduction under Section 80IC the same was claimed only for the unit situated in Rudrapur (Uttrakhand). There is net loss in the units of Manessar (Haryana) & Chennai (Tamilnadu) and there is a net profit in Rudrapur Unit. The TPO has only disallowed this claim as the assessee was not involved in manufacture of any item covered by Schedule XIV, where as the assessee has referred Schedule XIII and submitted that it is not considered by the TPO. After verifying Schedule XIII & XIV it is pertinent to note that the assessee's location at Rudrapur is coming under the scope of 80IC but the address was not properly verified....