TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment years 2003-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively. The above additions were made by the AO on the recommendation of TPO suggesting adjustment in arm's length price (ALP) of the assessee relating to international transactions with its AE. The ld.counsel for the assessee pointed out that in the Asstt.Year 2004-05, original upward adjustment was made of Rs. 1,71,98,885/- in the second round of litigation, but after an application under section 154 before the ld.CIT(A) this has been scaled down to Rs. 1,65,41,873/-. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that in all these assessment years the dispute has travelled upto the Tribunal in first round of litigation. The Tribunal has remitted this issue back to the file of the AO who has directed to have fresh opinion from the TPO about the adjustment recommended in ALP of international transactions. He further pointed out that for example, in the original round of assessment an adjustment of Rs. 2,02,39,798/- was recommended by the TPO. On set aside proceedings, he has reduced the adjustment at Rs. 1,59,56,205/- in the Asstt.Year 2002-03. Similarly, original adjustment recommended by the TPO in the first roun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... inability to controvert the TPO's observations, I am of the view that no interference is called for. Impugned addition is sustained. These grounds of appeal are dismissed." 4. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to take note of the finding of the ld.CIT(A) in the Asstt.Year 2002-03 also, which reads as under: "(A) Ground No. 1 to 7 are interlinked and against the determination of Arms length price for an adjustment of Rs. 1,59,56,205/-. The appellant itself submitted that similar issue with similar facts was there in its own case for A.Y. 03-04 hence the submission made during appeal for that year be considered here. My predecessor in the appellant's case for A.Y. 03-04 already adjudicated matter against appellant as already discussed at para 4D above. It is important to note here that (i) Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad 'D1 bench vide order dt. 24.07.09 in ITA No. 846/Ahd/2006 & ITA No. 253/Ahd/2008 for A.Y. 02-03 as well as in ITA No. 157/Ahd/2007 for A.Y. 03-04 and ITA No. 951/Ahd/2008 for A.Y. 02-03 at para 30 after considering various submissions and contentions setasided the issue of determination of Arms length price & transfer price adjustment back to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judicial powers, the authorities are required to pass orders by giving reasons in support thereof is wellsettled by a series of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 5. In Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala AIR 1961 SC 1669, while dealing with an order passed by the Central Government in exercise of its appellate powers under section 111(3) of the Companies Act, 1956, in the matter of refusal of a company to register the transfer of shares, Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed : ". . . If the Central Government acts as a Tribunal exercising [quasi] judicial powers and the exercise of that power is subject to the jurisdic- tion of this Court under article 136 of the Constitution, we fail to see how the power of this Court can be effectively exercised if reasons are not given by the Central Government in support of its order. . . ." (p. 1678) 6. Another Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bhagat Raja v. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1606 considered the question whether while exercising revisional power under section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 read with Rules 54 and 55 of the Mineral C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le the Supreme Court quashed the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that it was not supported by reasons and observed : ". . .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 and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second, it is a well-known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice. Third, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from the decision of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities to this Court by special leave granted under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decisions-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....light of the above, if we visualize written submissions and finding given by the ld.CIT(A), then it is apparent that such finding does not contain any adjudication on the submissions of the assessee and not sustainable. Therefore, we set side finding of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue in all three years. We restore this issue to the filing of the ld.CIT(A) for readjudication. It is observed that the assessee has already subject to two rounds of litigations. The ld.CIT(A) shall keep in mind judgment of Full Bench of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court while re-adjudicating this issue. 7. In the assessee's appeal there is no other ground in the Asstt.Year 2003-04 except charging of interest under sections 234A/B/C & D and peripheral argument of 80IA. Thus, this appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. 8. In the Revenue's appeal i.e. ITA No.2576/Ahd/2014, sole ground raised is, that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made under section 80HHC of Rs. 4,26,64,066/-. 9. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that this issue covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court rendere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The ld.CIT(A) restricted this disallowance to Rs. 12.30 lakhs and deleted the addition of Rs. 1,87,83,000/-. The finding recorded by the ld.CIT(A) on this issue reads asunder: "The appellant in appeal contended that in view of Hon'ble Bombay high Ccourt order in the case of Godrej & Boyee Mfg. co. (supra), Rule 8D is prospective and applicable w.e.f. 01.04.08 and in the impugned previous year, as per ratio of this order a reasonable disallowances can be made. It was further contended that appellant's investment are very old and made out of surplus & interest free fund hence no disallowances out of interest are called for. The appellant relied on Hon'ble Bombay high court order in the case of Reliance Utilities & power Ltd. (supra), Munjal sales corporation (supra) and Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad order in the case of Torrent Financiers Ltd. to substantiate this contention. In reference to disallowance out of administrative expenses, it was contended that dividend received through 6 cheques were deposited with no expenditure. The A.O. in the impugned order invoked Rule 8D and made disallowance of Rs. 2,00,34,000/-. It is undisputed that appellant was in receipt of div....