TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1042
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned Assessing officer in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, and weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The appellant denies itself to be liable to be assessed to a total income of Rs. 5,68,90,507/- as against the total income returned of Rs. (-) 54,96,67,319/- under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act under the facts and circumstances Hof the case. 3. Grounds on Transfer pricing issues: i. The learned Assessing officer/TPO/DRP were not justified in confirming the pricing adjustment of Rs. 41,49,488/- on the facts and circumstance of the case. ii. The learned Assessing officer/TPO/DRP were not justified in confirming that the service of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out such adjustment the addition made in the impugned order is liable to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Grounds on Depreciation: i. The learned Assessing officer/DRP were not justified in making a disallowance of the depreciation claimed on intangibles to the extent of Rs. 60,23,41,019/- as being excessive, on the facts and circumstances of the case. ii. The learned Assessing officer/DRP were not justified in making a disallowance of Rs. 33,22,83,957/- in respect of claim of depreciation on Trademarks acquired and utilised for the purpose of business on the facts and circumstances of the case. iii. The learned Assessing officer/DRP were not justified in making a disallowance of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case. 6. The learned Assessing officer/DRP were not justified in holding that the acquisition cost of the intangible assets were highly-excessive and consequently denied total deprecation on the same on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Without prejudice, the assessing officer ought to have adopted the principle of valuation as he deemed fit and granted depreciation atleast to the said extent and thus the non granting of any deprecation is totally contrary to law and thus the disallowance of depreciation is highly excessive and is required to be substantially reduced. 8. The learned Assessing officer/DRP were not justified in ignoring the fact that the assets acquired were pursuant to the receip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithout prejudice, the learned Assessing Officer ought to have referred the matter to the valuation officer under section 55A of the income tax Act, 1961 in order to obtain a report or from an external agency qualified to do so, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. Without prejudice, if it were to be held that the assets acquired were not capital in nature, the same were to be allowed as a revenue expenditure on the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rders of the lower authorities, we find that the assessee company is engaged in providing transactional support services to its parent company. In January, 2013 the assessee has purchased intangible assets like trademarks, brand, goodwill, technical know-how, etc. from Cosme group based in Goa. With the purchase of intangible assets, the assessee has entered into manufacturing, marketing and distribution of branded pharmaceutical products in India and some other countries. The cost of the assets acquired in January, 2013 was amounting to Rs. 481,87,28,153. Assessee claimed depreciation, but it was not allowed by the AO on the ground that valuation report was not furnished, whereas this claim of depreciation was allowed by the AO in the succ....