TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 1182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of sourcing, distribution and marketing of a range of Adidas branded athletic and life style products. The assessee filed its original return of income on 29.11.206 at nil income wherein the profits prior to adjustment of brought forward losses were declared at ₹ 2,56,12,914/-. The assessee then filed revised return on 21.11.2008 at nil income wherein the profits prior to adjustment of brought forward losses were declared ₹ 4,18,18,258/-. The assessment in the case of the assessee was finalized after making various additions despite of the fact that assessee had filed various objections before Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP) against the draft a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... We have perused the order of TPO in which the objections raised by the AR during the TPO's proceedings has been dealt with. The AR before us has reiterated the arguments adduced before TPO and has objected to the computation of arms length. On detailed examination of the TPO's order we do not find any infirmity. C. Ground No.3 relates to the adjustments of ₹ 10,48,537/-. The order of TP"O has been seen by us. The arguments have been heard. We do not find any infirmity. D. Ground No.4.1.1. is related to disallowance of part of advertisement, marketing and promotion expenditure (AMP) expenditure. In view of the order of Delhi High Court in I.T.A. No. 265 of 2008 in assessee's own case for assessment year 1997- 98, the additions f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the DRP has not considered all objections and has passed order which is a non speaking order. In this respect he took us to brief synopsis filed by him and invited our attention where the Ld AR had dealt with ground No.1 to 8 of the appeal. He argued that ground No.2.1. and ground No.2.2. were not discussed at all by DRP and further in respect of ground No. 3 to 3.12 and ground No.3 & 10, the DRP has not applied its mind towards two paper books filed before it. Regarding ground Noi.5, it was brought to our notice that this ground was covered by the ITAT in appellant's own case for assessment year 2004-05 and with regard to ground No.6, it was pointed out that mater related to depreciation on computer peripherals was covered in favour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said that it is totally a non speaking order. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Road Master Industries of India v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax reported in 303 ITR 138 has considered the necessity of assigning reason in support of an order adjudicating the controversy between the parties. The Hon'ble Court has made reference to a large number of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Courts in order to demonstrate that in the past Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized time and again that adjudicating authority should give reason for disposing off the rights of the parties. For the sake of facility of reference we take note of the following findings from the Hig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ombers Workers' Union, AIR 1973 SC 2758, the hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that it was not supported by reasons and observed (page 2761): "The giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious, unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion. The authority will adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e them and apart from any extraneous considerations by applying preexisting legal norms to factual situations. Now, the necessity of giving reasons is an important safeguard to ensure observance of the duty to act judicially. It introduces clarity, checks the introduction of extraneous or irrelevant considerations and excludes or, at any rate minimises arbitrariness in the decision-making process. Another reason which compels making of such an order is based on the power of judicial review which is possessed by the High Court under article 226 and the Supreme Court under article 32 of the Constitution. These courts have the power under the said provisions to quash by certiorari a quasi-judicial order made by an administrative officer and....