TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessing officer erred on facts and in law in completing the impugned assessment at an income of Rs. 77,55,44,240 against income of Rs. 26,45,57,240 declared by the appellant in the return of income for the relevant assessment year. 1.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in referring the impugned assessment proceedings to the Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') without an independent application of mind as to requirement of doing so on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case. 1.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in referring the impugned assessment proceedings to the TPO without recording proper reasons/ prima facie satisfaction as to requirement of doing so. 1.4 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in referring the impugned assessment proceedings to the TPO without affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant before doing the same. 1.5 That the draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was totally illegal and barred by limitation, since, the extension in time limit for completion of assessment in case of reference to TPO was not applicable/ available in the impugned assessment proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting protective adjustment on account of excess AMP expenditure incurred by the appellant. 2.8 Without prejudice, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not reducing the reimbursements amounting to Rs. 2,08,05,743 received by the appellant from its AE in connection with the AMP expenses, while computing the protective adjustment on account of alleged international transaction of provision of brand building services. 3. That the assessing officer/ DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in rejecting the benchmarking analysis done by the appellant and undertaking intensity based comparability adjustment on substantive basis, though the same does not have any monetary impact since the adjustment falls within the tolerable range of +- 3%. 4. That the assessing officer/ DRP erred on facts and in law in not allowing the additional claim of deduction on account of interest paid on custom duty amounting to Rs. 5,23,44,182, pursuant to order of the settlement commission. 4.1 That the assessing officer/ DRP erred on facts and in law in not allowing the aforesaid additional claim of deduction by incorrectly holding that the same does not pertain to the relevant assessment ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(TPO). The Ld. TPO accepted the benchmarking of various international transactions carried out by the assessee using Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), however, noted that assessee was essentially distributor and selling consumer durables and IT products bearing the brand/trademark of its associated enterprise namely "Toshiba". According to the Ld. TPO, the assessee discharged marketing functions which included market development thereby creating and adding value to the existing intangibles owned by the AE, by way of expenditure on advertising, marketing and promotion (AMP) incurred to promote the brand-name "Toshiba", which is owned by its AE. The incurring of such expenditure has invariably resulted into a benefit to the AE and for which the assessee should have been suitably compensated. The Ld. TPO asked the assessee, as to why the transaction of AMP expenditure might not be benchmarked in line with the direction of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India (Pvt.) ltd. Vs. CIT-III - (2015) 55 taxmann.com 240 (Delhi). The assessee submitted that it was a manufacturer and not just distributor and hence, the judgment of Hon'ble Delh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,31,21,90,000 51,09,87,000 3.3 Thus, we find that substantive addition on AMP adjustment on AMP stands already deleted by the Ld. DRP, and only the addition made on protective basis following the BLT method was sustained by the ld. DRP, against which, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The Ld. counsel submitted that ground No. 1 and 1.1 of the appeal are general in nature. Since the ground being general in nature we are not required to adjudicate upon specifically and accordingly dismissed as infructuous. 5. Further, during the hearing of the case, the Ld. counsel did not press the ground Nos.1.2 to 1.5 and 2.1 to 2.4 and ground No. 3, accordingly all these grounds are dismissed as infructuous. 6. The ground Nos. 2, 2.5 to 2.6 relates to protective addition made applying the BLT. 6.1 Before us, the learned counsel submitted that Tribunal in the case of Nickon India Private Limited (ITA No. 4574/Del/2017, dated 20.09.2017) has deleted the identical addition of protective nature, and therefore, in the case of the assessee also, no addition could be sustained. 6.2 The Ld. CIT(DR), on the other hand, relied on the finding of the lower authorities. 6.3 We have heard the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cause notice issued by the DRI, the assessee filed application before the settlement commission and paid custom duty alongwith interest in the month of March, 2016. The Settlement Commission passed final order on 24/06/2016 resulting tax demand alongwith interest and penalty. The assessee paid penalty in the month of August, 2016. The Ld. counsel claimed that interest paid on the custom duty, which arose in financial year 2015-16, was relevant to the assessment year in consideration and, therefore, it should be allowed as deduction to the assessee in the assessment year under consideration. The learned counsel attempted to distinguish the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13. On the contrary, the learned CIT(DR) relied on the finding of the lower authorities. 8.3 During the hearing of the case, provision of section 43B of the Act, were, were brought to the notice of the Ld. counsel which reads that "any sum payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty-cess or fee by whatever name called, shall be allowed in the previous year, in which, such sum is actually paid by him." The Ld. counsel admitted that amount being paid in subsequent years,....