2019 (9) TMI 259

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ses. 2. Shri Manish Shah appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee in appeal has raised three grounds of appeal. The Tribunal allowed ground No.1 and 2 of the appeal relating to determination of nature of Technical Fee Assistance and Project Management Fee paid by assessee in para 10 and in the same para has also observed that the issue of determination of Arm's Length Price (hereinafter referred to as "ALP') would be necessary. The issue of determination of ALP was raised in ground No.3 of the appeal. The same was in principle, accepted by the Tribunal. 2.1 However, while summing up, the Tribunal in para 12 wrongly observed that ground No.1 and 2 are restored to the file of Assessing Officer and hence, allow....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tance fees and Project Management fees. The assessee has capitalized the same as the project was not complete in the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal. The capital transactions are outside the purview of Transfer Pricing mechanism. Having observed that, there is no denying the fact that in the subsequent years the assessee would be claiming depreciation on the cost of capital asset which would include payment of fees for Technical Assistance and Project Management. Therefore, determination of ALP of such services in the year of payment of such fees would be relevant." Thus, in the light of aforesaid findings, ground No.1 and 2 of the appeal were allowed. 5. However, while concluding, a mistake has crept in the order. I....