2018 (4) TMI 1685

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e the findings of the CIT (A) and directing the Assessing Officer to delete the Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs. 6,56,60,828/- made by it on account of Interest on loan to Sun Pharma Global Inc (AE) at London Inter Bank Offer Rate (LIBOR) Plus 2% Rate which is almost equal to the Prime Landing Rate or American Bank lending rate? B. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in setting aside the findings of the CIT(A) and directing the Assessing Officer to delete the entire Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs. 29,80,13,898/- made by it on account of interest on 0% OFCDs at London Inter Bank Offer Rate (LIBOR) Plus 2% Rate, without appreciating that the Assessing Officer had computed Arm'....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gistration of Foreign Trade Marks and Patents? G. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in upholding the assessee's claim for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act in relation to the revenue expenditure? H. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT has substantially erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,60,88,172/-to Book Profit u/s. 115JB despite the fact that said amount was disallowed u/s. 14A of the Act and hence was required to be added to the book profit as per clause (f) to Explanation 1 of section 115JB(2) of the Act? I. Whether in facts of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting disallowance of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly on the issue of earning exempt income as a share of partnership firm M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries?" 4. Insofar as question (1) is concerned, we notice that the amount involved is merely Rs. 40,000/-. Looking to the smallness of claim, the question is not considered. 5. Insofar as question (2) is concerned, the assessee had claimed certain expenditure which the Assessing Officer had disallowed holding that the same was not for the purpose of business. CIT (A) gave partial relief but made disallowance under section 14A of the Act. In further appeals by the Revenue as well as by the assessee, the Tribunal uphold applicability of section 14A of the Act but provided that Rule 8D formally may be applied. In that view of the matter,....