2015 (7) TMI 1282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rejecting the entity level TNMM adopted by the TPO and directed to compute the adjustment at transaction level only. 2.1. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of components like bi-metal engine bearings, bushes, washers, flanges for automotive, industrial, agricultural, earthmoving, marine and stationary engines. More than 50% of the shares are held by Federal Mogul Corporation, USA. The Associated Enterprises of the assessee are:- 1) Federal Mogul Corporation, U.S. 2) Federal Mogul S.A.R.L, Italy 3) Federal Mogul Operations France S.A.S 4) Federal Mogul Wiesbaden GmbH, Germany 5) Federal Mogul Bimet, S.A. 2.2. During the year, the assessee entered into the following international transac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g out of ALP cannot be made on the entire turnover and the same has to be restricted to the International transaction with the AE." Thus the ALP has to be at International Transaction and not in relation to assessee's entire sales/turnover. 6. Considering the facts in totality in the light of the decision of the Tribunal (supra), we do not find any error in the directions of the DRP. Appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. 7. Coming to the Cross objection of the assessee, it is seen that the Cross objection is late by 80 days. We find that the assessee has filed an application for the condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit. 8. We have carefully gone through the contents of the affidavit. We find that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me should be allowed as a revenue loss. The DRP observed that loan was granted in capital field and for capital purposes. Further granting of loan is not a business of the assessee Neither is the loan or any part thereof was credited in the P&L account and offered for taxation before such a write off. The DRP declined to allow deduction. 14. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision in the case of CIT Vs Honda Siel Power Products 165 ITR 577. 15. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in the case of DCM Ltd. Vs DCIT 123 TTJ 114, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Salem Mangnesite (P) Ltd. Vs CIT 321 ITR 43 and the decision of the Tribunal ....