TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 51
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ical; therefore, these appeals and cross objections have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in Revenue's appeal, in ITA No.1372/Kol/2016, for assessment Year 2009-10, have been taken into consideration for deciding the above appeals and cross objections en masse. 3. Although, these appeals filed by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2008-09 (in ITA No.1371/Kol/2017) and for A.Y. 2009-10 (in ITA No.1372/Kol/2017) and Cross-Objections filed by the Assessee in Assessment Year 2008-09 (in CO. No.71/Kol/2018) and for A.Y. 2009-10 (in CO. No.72/Kol/2018), contain multiple ground of appeals. However, at the time of hearing we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as cross objections raised by the Assessee. Most of the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as Assessee, are either academic in nature or contentious in nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of Revenue and the Assessee as well. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Revenue as wel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d No.5 relates to grievance of the Revenue that companies eligible for claiming deduction u/s 10A of the Act, should continue to remain liable to pay Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) u/s 115JB of the Act. (2).Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in Assessment Year 2008-09 (in ITA No.1371/Kol/2017) and Ground No.10 raised by the Revenue in Assessment Year 2009-10 (in ITA No.1372/Kol/2017) relates to disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). (3).Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue in Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No.1371/Kol/2017 relates to disallowance of depreciation to the tune of Rs. 15,392/-. (4).Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue in Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No.1371/Kol/2017 relates to addition of Rs. 6,43,440/- on account of unexplained investment deleted by the ld. CIT(A) admitting additional evidence. 4. We shall first take-up additions challenged on account of Transfer Pricing Adjustment. For the sake of ready reference, grounds of appeal raised by Revenue and Cross Objections raised by the assessee for A.Y 2008-09 and 2009-10, relating to transfer pricing issues are reproduced hereunder: Grounds relating to Transfer Pricing (1).The main grievance of the Revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng and export of silk fabric and garments. During the year under consideration the assessee company has entered into following international transactions with its associated enterprises, the details of which are given as under: Sl No. Name of A.E Nature of services Amounts (Rs.) 1 SPIN International Inc Export of Fabrics 20,04,96,006/- 2 OOO JJ Homes Export of Fabrics 94,68,840/- 3 J.J. Creations SA Export of Fabrics 31,26,409/- During the course of the proceedings before ld TPO, the assessee filed a Transfer Pricing Study Report and such other documents as were required together with detailed submissions to justify the arm's length price computed in respect of the international transactions. The documents and information submitted during the course of the proceedings were perused by the ld TPO and he noticed that in respect of the international transactions, the conclusion arrived by the assessee, in respect of the arm's length nature of the transaction should not be acceptable. However, the assessee claimed that its profit margin on transaction with its A.E, was at a higher margin that with other companies. For the said claim the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to do with the operations of the company, are excluded from operating revenues: i. Interest, ii. Dividends, iii. Provisions no longer written back. iv. Gain on sale of assets/investments, v. Income from investments, vi. Gain on revaluation of assets. vii. Foreign Exchange gain, and viii. Other incomes not pertaining to the operations Similarly, the following expenses which are non-operating and provisions are excluded from operating expenses: i. Provisions other than provisions for bad debts ii. Loss on sale of assets/investments iii. Loss on revaluation of assets iv. Foreign exchange loss v. Other expenses not pertaining to the operations. Similarly, extra ordinary expenses or income which do not recur every year like donations, preliminary expenses written off are not considered as operating expenses as the comparison of the profits should be at same level for the comparable with that of the tax payer. Provisions no longer required written back has been excluded from profit and loss as these are treated as extraordinary income and also does not pertain to the business operations of the taxpayer during the FY.2007-08, as these provisions pertain to the expenses of ea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rule 10B(l)(e) which deals with arm's length price & transaction net margin method. On a perusal of the same, it is very clear that net margin method refers to only net profit margin realized by an enterprise from an international transaction or a cluster of such transaction and not operating margin of the enterprises as a whole. As regards the issues being selection and the rejection of the comparables, the ld CIT(A) noted that the Assessing Officer has failed to bring on record any reason for rejection of the comparables so given by the assessee i.e. M/s. Zenith Exports Ltd. & M/s. Eastern Silk Ind. Ltd. In Zenith Exports Ltd., the assessee has furnished the segmental report of the said comparable and as such the Assessing Officer's contention in such respect is not acceptable and whereas in respect of Eastern Silk Ind. Ltd., it has merely rejected the same on account of turnover without differentiating the same on account of any dissimilarity in Function, Asset or Risk borne by such comparable. Hence, ld CIT(A) noted that both the comparables rejected by the TPO had been wrongly rejected and same needs to be considered while computing the margin of the comparables. As rega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith Exports Limited, and 2) Eastern Silk Ind.Limited. The relevant data and information about these companies, as submitted by the ld Counsel are given below, one by one, as follows 1). Zenith Exports Ltd. (Pb 65) Nature Amount Paper book Pg. No Volume of Paper book Segmental Results Pg. 108 Volume I Turnover 461.60 cr (16.25%) Pg 111 Volume 1 The ld TPO has rejected such comparable without making any discussion in the order and has simply applied search process on data base applying certain filters. The TPO did not examine data which was very much part of the audited accounts of the said company. Since the assessee is also engaged in sales & manufacturing of silk fabric & segmental results available, it is functionally comparable and as the rejection by the TPO/ AO is not at all justified. Hence the company should be considered as comparable of the assessee and the segmental result as disclosed in the audited accounts should be considered for determination of "Mean Price" of the comparable. The Ld. CIT(A) in his wisdom has observed that TPO/ AO had rejected this comparable due to high turnover and assets this party is not comparable without appreciating th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... (2014) 149 ITD 587 (Hyd) d) SAP (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT(2012) 87 taxmann.com 316 (Bangalore AT) Page 42 of case law paper book) [RPT tolerance unit between 15% to 25%] Hence it may be held accordingly. The ld Counsel objected the seven comparable selected by the ld TPO. The ld TPO selected the seven comparable companies to compute the PLI and arm's length price. The TPO in its order has selected following comparable and respective operating margins is as follows: 1. Grabal Alok Impex Ltd. (merged) 37.07% 2. Hanung Toys and Textiles Ltd. 20.45% 3. Jaipuria Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. 28.23% 4. Kariwala industries Ltd. 26.65% 5. Sharadha Terry Products Ltd. 37.01% 6. Silktex Ltd. 13.65% 7. Welspun India Ltd. 13.55% Average 25.23% The aforesaid comparable as selected by TPO without providing any opportunity to object to such selections and such consideration of such comparable without disclosing the function, asset and risk employed by such comparable is bad in law. Without prejudice, the TPO has not even disclosed the product profile of such alleged comparable and has already selected from prowess data base whose integrity is not without doubt a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O), the ld CIT(A) rejected the six comparable companies. The ld Counsel defended the order passed by the ld CIT(A), so far six comparable companies rejected by the ld CIT(A) are concerned. However, ld CIT(A) accepted one comparable company, by name, M/s Silktex Ltd. The assessee does not agree with this comparable, so accepted by the ld CIT(A) because this company is not functionally comparable and there are a lot of dissimilarity. The ld Counsel submitted the details of M/s Silktex Ltd as follows: 2) Silktex Ltd Nature Amount Pg No Volume I Geographical segmental information not provided - - - Import filter of RM not applied nor it is available - - - Asset Base 23.47 Cr Pg 163 Volume I T.O 29.84 Cr Pg 164 Volume I a) This company selected by TPO vide "Prowess data base" has a turnover of 29.84 crore as against turnover of tested party at 84.81 crore and as such cannot be considered as comparable. b) The asset base of this company is at mere 23.47 crore as against of tested party at 64.21 crore. c) The geometrical segmental transaction of such company has not been given whereas the AE of tested party is mainly in USA and a smaller party in Russia & Be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urred by the comparable companies should also needs to be added back to determine the arm's length operating profit so as to ensure functional comparability on a like to like basis. However, after considering the submissions of the counsel for the assessee, the ld DR for the revenue, so far assessment year 2008-09 is concerned, accepted the two comparable companies, viz: Zenith exports and Eastern Silk Ind Ltd. as selected by the assessee. However, for A.Y. 2009-10, ld DR objected about the Eastern Silk Ind Ltd, and submitted to the Bench that this company has high related party transactions, therefore, the said company should not be selected as a comparable company. Apart from this, the ld. DR for the Revenue, to substantiate his arguments, relied on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Headstrong Service India Pvt Ltd, in ITA No.6200/Del/2012, Assessment Year 2008-09, order dated 11.02.2016 wherein it was held that: "8.2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the assessee adopted TNMM as the most appropriate method in its TP study report. The TPO accepted the same. It was only for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd circumstances of the instant case is TNMM, which was originally adopted by the assessee and also approved by the TPO. 9. To sum up the above discussion, we hold that the assessee was not right in working out its PLI by also considering projected profits for the three subsequent years; no deduction on account of foreign exchange fluctuations can be allowed in the facts and circumstances of the instant case; and the revenue sharing formula as put forth by the assessee as relevant under the CUP method for determining the ALP, is not correct." 16. In respect of section 10A company's issue, the ld. DR for the Revenue held that even if the some units of assessee companies are enjoyed 10A benefit, the adjustment of arm's length price is to be necessarily done as per section 92 of the Act. For that he relied on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Hyderabad in case of M/s. Wissen Infotech vs. DCIT in ITA No.99/Hyd/2015 & ITA No.311/Hyd/2015 order dated 28.02.2017 wherein it was held that: "6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd has held that the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al transaction shall be determined by one of the methods given in this provision. This section also does not immune an international transaction from the computation of its ALP when income is otherwise eligible for deduction. On the contrary, we find that sub-section (4) of section 92C plainly stipulates that where an ALP is determined, the AO may compute the total income of the assessee having regard to the ALP so determined. This shows that the total income of an assessee entering into an international transaction, is required to be necessarily computed having regard to its ALP without any exception. Thus, the ld. AR's argument that since its income is subject to deduction u/s 80IC, the provisions of the Chapter-X of the Act should not be applied, in our considered opinion, has no force in view of the clear statutory mandate contained in proviso to section 92C(4), which reads as under:- 'Provided that no deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or under Chapter VI-A shall be allowed in respect of the amount of income by which the total income of the assessee is enhanced after computation of income under this subsection. 9.3. A circumspect perusal of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2015, in our considered opinion is misconceived, because, in that case, the Tribunal primarily found that the AO erred in not himself examining the issue of TP and failed to apply his mind to the TP report filed by the assessee. The last sentence in para 54 of the order upholding the assessee's contention that no TP adjustment can be made where the assessee enjoys benefit of deduction u/s 10A or 80HHE, etc., is only obiter dicta inasmuch as the addition was found to be not sustainable on the other main grounds as discussed in the body of the order. On the contrary, we find that the decision of the Special bench in Aztech Software (supra) permitting the applicability of sections 92C and 92CA to an assessee availing the benefit of section 80IC etc. of the Act is its ratio decidendi. The ld. AR has not pointed out any judgment of some Hon'ble High Court deciding this point either way. In view of the fact that there is already a Special Bench decision in the case of Aztech Software (supra) which supports the making of transfer pricing adjustment notwithstanding the availability of deduction under such sections to the assessee, apart from clear statutory mandate contained in pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions in Arm's length dealing. Rule 10B (3) specifically provides as under:- "An uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction ifnone of the differences, if any, between the transactions being compared, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions are likely to materially affect the price or cost charged or paid in, or the profit arising from, such transactions in the open market; or reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the material effects of such differences". This, Rule specifically recognizes that reasonably accurate adjustment should be made to eliminate the material effects of differences, if any. Sub-rule (2) lays down the factors for determining comparability whereas; sub-rule (3) lays down the standard of comparability. The standard comparability not necessarily entails complete identity between the two transactions but sufficient similarity. It can be held to be sufficient similar if the differences between them is not material so as to effect price or profit in the open market and if there is one such thing, then such a material difference needs to be eliminated throug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....straints may prevent re-examination of earlier tax years by the tax administrations. At least in part for this reason, tax administrations may wish to subject the issue of business strategies to particular scrutiny. 1.117 When evaluating whether a taxpayer was following a business strategy that temporarily decreased profits in return for higher long-run profits, several factors should be considered. Tax administrations should examine the conduct of the parties to determine if it is consistent with the purported business strategy. For example, if a manufacturer charges its associated distributor a below-market price as part of a market penetration strategy, the cost savings to the distributor may be reflected in the price charged to the distributor's customers or in greater market penetration expenses incurred by the distributor. A market penetration strategy of an MNE group could be put in place either by the manufacturer or by the distributor acting separately from the manufacturer (and the resulting cost borne by either of them), or by both of them acting in a co-ordinated manner. Furthermore, unusually intensive marketing and advertising efforts would often accompany a ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the material effects which warrants some kind of reasonable accurate adjustments. 19. We note that the assessee has agitated the impugned addition of Rs. 12,31,02,132/- to the transaction made by the assessee with it's Associate Enterprise (AE) under section 92A of the Act, across territorial border of India. The assessee has not disputed the fact that the transaction is "international transaction" as defined u/s 92B of the Act nor the fact that the transacting parties are it's Associate Enterprise (AE) under section 92A of the Act. Hence, the lone point remains to adjudicated is only in respect of addition of Rs. 12,31,02,132/- to the transaction so made with Associate enterprise(AE) and the various contentions so raised in such respect. The assessee has three Associate Enterprises (AE's) during the year i.e. SPIN Inc. in USA, 000 JJ Homes in Russia and JJ Creations in Belgium to whom assessee sold goods/services and details of the sales are as follows: Spin International Inc, USA Rs.20,04,96 ,006 OOO JJ Homes, Russia Rs.94,68,840 JJ Creation, Belgium Rs.31,26,408 Total sales Rs.21,30,91,254 We note that the assessee had aggregated the transaction a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... profit 31.26 94.02 Operating profit 13.05% 12.5% Operating cost 15.01% 14.35% Average margin on cost = 14.68% Average margin on sales - 12.78% As such the margin earned by assessee from AE at 22.96% is much better than that of comparables at average of 12.78%, We note that these comparables had been selected and accepted by TPO in subsequent assessment year,2010-11 having same product mix and functional comparability. Now we deal with comparable selected by assessee and objection to comparable selected by TPO, as follows: Comments Comparable selected by assessee (i) Zenith Exports Ltd.: Nature Amount Paper book Pg. No Volume of Paper book Turnover 510.03 cr Pg 127 Volume I RPT 82.90 cr (16.25%) Pg 138 Volume I Exports 413.24 cr Pg 140 Volume I The TPO has rejected such comparable without any specific ground and it seems that since such party was engaged in leather silk & yarn. On TPO's query the segmental data was duly provided to the TPO. However, the TPO did not examine such data which was very much part of the audited accounts of the said company. Indeed, on query during the course of hearing before TPO the relevant part of such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is comparable as selected by assessee had only 16.25% related party transactions (RPT) which is much within less than tolerance range as considered by various Coordinate Benches of ITAT in the country which have considered such RPT (related party transaction) limit at 15% to 25% and these judgments are as follows: a) DCIT vs. Synopsis India (P) Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 10 (Bang) b) SAP (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT(2012) 87 taxmann.com 316 (Bang AT) Hence, we accept this comparable. 21. Now we deal with grievance of Ld DR for the Revenue, about RPT filter, in respect of the two comparable companies selected by the assessee, viz: (i) Zenith Exports Ltd. and (ii) M/s. Eastern Silk Ltd. We note that the assessee is in the business of manufacture and export of silk fabrics. The ld TPO for AY 2008-09 has rejected Zenith Exports Ltd. on the ground of high turnover only. We note that the assessee has a turnover of Rs. 64 cr. whereas the turnover of Zenith Exports Ltd. for AY 2008-09 is Rs. 237.25 cr. for AY 2009-10 Rs. 462 cr. Therefore, Zenith Exports Ltd. could not have been rejected on the basis of the turnover filter and, therefore, we agree with the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15% to 25%] We also note this fact that the TPO has not mentioned any RPT filter for AY 2009-10, in his order, therefore considering all the facts and circumstances, as explained above, we confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A) in accepting M/s. Eastern Silk Ltd as comparable for A.Y. 2009-10. 22. Now we deal with the comparable selected by Ld TPO. The ld TPO in his order has selected following comparable and respective operating margins, are as follows: 1. Grabal Alok Impex Ltd. (merged) 37.07% 2. Hanung Toys and Textiles Ltd. 20.45% 3. Jaipuria Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. 28.23% 4. Kariwala industries Ltd. 26.65% 5. Sharadha Terry Products Ltd. 37.01% 6. Silktex Ltd. 13.65% 7. Welspun India Ltd. 13.55% Average 25.23% On appeal by the assessee before the ld CIT(A), the ld CIT(A) rejected six comparables, except Silktex Ltd. The ld CIT(A) noted that product profile of these comparable companies do not match with that of the assessee or the chosen comparable companies do not have export activity. i) Grabal Alok Impex Ltd. ... ...........Embroidered Fabric, Laces ii) Welspun India Ltd. ... Terry Towels, Bed linen products iii) Sharadha Terry Products Ltd. ......
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Years 2008-09 and 2009-10. We note that the net profit margin earned by the Assessee from the controlled international transaction was 22.96% in comparison to the average net profit margin earned by the comparables chosen by the Assessee at 12.78%. If one were to proceed on the basis of the comparable selected by the assessee and apply its profit margin of 12.78%, the Assessee's profit margin of 22.96% is higher. Hence the comparison of the net profit margin of the international transaction of the Assessee in comparison to the net profit margin of the comparables is much better and the addition so made by the TPO & AO is wholly wrong and incorrect and therefore, we delete both the upward transfer pricing adjustment made by TPO/AO for A.Y. 2008-09 at Rs. 7,65,00,000/- and for A.Y. 2009-10 at Rs. 12,31,02,132/-. 23. Now we deal with our concise ground No.2 which reads as under: "(2) Revenue's Ground No.3 and 4 are in respect of allocation of cost between the Associate Enterprise (AE) and Non-AE transactions and the non- consideration of entity level margin by the CIT(A) and consideration of transactional margin only." At the outset itself, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, brough....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat has to be compared with uncontrolled transaction and not the transaction undertaken by the entity as a whole. Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of UCB India (P) Ltd. V. ACIT (2009) 121 ITD 131 had held that sec, 92C read with Rule 10B(l) (e) deals with the Transactions Net Margin Method and it refers to only net profit margin realized by an enterprise from an international transaction or a class of such transactions but not operating margins of enterprises as whole. This view was re-iterated by the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT 'L ' Bench in the case of Addl. CIT v. Tej Diam as reported in [2010] 37 SOT 341 (Mum) and wherein tribunal held that the margin of the international transaction can only be compared with uncontrolled transaction and not otherwise. This view was also followed in following decisions as well: (a) DCIT v. Starlite (2010) 40 SOT 401 (Mum) (b) Decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Avishek Auto Ltd. v. DClT, Delhi, Circle - 1 (1 ) in ITA No. 1433/Del/2009* for A.Y 2004-05 order dt. 12.11.2010 ) the Hon'ble Tribunal while affirming the aforesaid judgment of Mumbai Tribunal in the case Of UCB India (F) Ltd. v. ACIT (supra) observed at page 8.2 of such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ponding to exports made to AE and not to the entire turnover of the assessee and hence, the TPO/AO's action in such respect cannot be sustained. Respectfully following the order of the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same. 24. Now we deal with our concise ground No.3 which reads as under: "(3) Revenue's Ground No. 6, 7 and 8 are in respect of challenging PLI as OP/Sales and various constituents of the PLI (Profit Level Indicator) which has been disputed by the TPO/AO. Assessee's CO. ground Nos. 2, 3 and 5 are in respect of export incentive and Forex fluctuation which should be considered as part of OR ( Operating Revenue)." We note that the Revenue in A.Ys 2008-09 & 2009- l0 has contended that PLI (Profit Level Indicator) has been considered by the CIT(A) as OP/ Sales as against the PLI considered by the TPO as OP/OC. We note that the appellant has also been engaged in trading of yarn and as such the consideration of PLI as OP/OC may not reflect the true results. The PLI as shown by the appellant for the transaction with the AE are as follows : A.Y 2008-09 A.Y 2009....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& 10B Unit. We note that as per section 92C (4) of the Act, no deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or under Chapter VI-A shall be allowed in respect of the amount of income by which the total income of the assessee is enhanced after computation of income under section 92C of the Act, which reads as follows: "Section 92C: Computation of arm's length price. (1) The arm's length price in relation to an international transaction [or specified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such other relevant factors as the Board may prescribe, namely:- (a) comparable uncontrolled price method; (b) resale price method; (c) cost plus method; (d) profit split method; (e) transactional net margin method; (f) such other method as may be prescribed by the Board......................................... ....................................................................................................................................................
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l indicators (PLI) computed by the assessee and we reject the seven comparables selected by the Ld TPO with detailed reasoning given by us above. Therefore, we delete the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO in assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10. Hence, so far transfer pricing grounds are concerned, we dismiss both the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No.1371 and 1372/Kol/2017 and allow the cross objections filed by the assessee as per discussion made supra. 27. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue on transfer pricing grounds ( in ITA No.1371 and 1372/Kol/2017), are dismissed. 28. Now, we deal with other grounds raised by the Revenue. The other grounds are given below for ready reference: Other Grounds raised by Revenue (1). Revenue's ground No.5 relates to grievance of the Revenue that companies eligible for claiming deduction u/s 10A of the Act, should continue to remain liable to pay Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) u/s 115JB of the Act. (2).Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in Assessment Year 2008-09 (in ITA No.1371/Kol/2017) and Ground No.10 raised by the Revenue in Assessment Year 2009-10 (in ITA No.1372/Kol/2017) relates to disallowance u/s 14A ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt years, that is, A.Y.2008-09 and 2009-10 We note that assessee's own funds are more than investments, hence, the presumption is that the investments were made out of share capital and reserve and surplus. Therefore, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities Power Limited (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT vs. HDFC Pvt. Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom), we delete the addition under Rule 8D (2) (ii). As regards the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(iii) we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance in line of the judgment of jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of REI Agro India reported in (2013) 144 ITD 141 (Kol) and therefore, Assessing Officer is directed to consider only those shares and investments in respect of dividend income has been earned during the year. That being so, we decline to interfere in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), his order on this issue is hereby upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed. 31. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue in Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No.1371/Kol/2017 relates to disallowance of depreciation to the tune of Rs. 15,392....