TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 379
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in determining arm's length price of Head Office General & Administrative expenses eligible to be claimed u/s 44C of the Act, at 'nil. The appellant prays that the action of the Hon'ble CIT(A) may please be held as bad-in-law and be deleted." 3 . Brief facts are, the assessee, as stated by the Assessing Officer, is a company incorporated in Cayman Island and is a tax resident of Cyprus. It has set-up a project office in India. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income originally on 30th September 2010 declaring loss of Rs. 593,05,17,684. Subsequently, it filed a revised return of income on 29th March 2012, decl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that, though, the Transfer Pricing Officer has determined the arm's length price of the Head Office expenditure, at Rs. nil, in respect of which the assessee could have claimed deduction under section 44C of the Act, however, on verification of the computation of income and Profit & Loss account he found that the assessee has neither debited such expenditure to its Profit & Loss account nor has claimed it as deduction in the computation of income. Thus, he held that no separate disallowance in respect of such expenditure can be made. 4. At the outset, Shri Vijay Mehta, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, since ultimately there is no addition on account of head Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decided keeping in view the provisions of the Act as well as relevant case laws. Therefore, while making it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issue as raised in this ground, we leave it open for adjudication if the issue arises in assessee's case for any other assessment year in future. With the aforesaid observations, the ground raised is dismissed as infructuous. 7. Besides the aforesaid main ground, the assessee has raised an additional ground vide letter dated 4th December 2018, challenging the levy of interest under section 234C of the Act amounting to Rs. 41,24,175. 8. The issue raised in the additional ground does not require investigation into fresh facts and can be decided on the basis of facts a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ical problem in Reserve Bank of India payment gateway, the payment could not be processed on 15th June 2009, and it was processed on the next day i.e., 16th June 2009. Thus, it was submitted that the delay of one day in paying the advance tax was not attributable to the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be fastened with the liability of paying interest under section 234C of the Act. To substantiate his argument, the learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the relevant documentary evidences placed on record. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, since all these evidences were available before learned Commissioner (Appeals), she should have given a clear direction to the Assessing Officer to delete the interest charged u....