TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 922
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, in terms of provision of Section 92C of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in restricting the rate of interest on loans given to Associated Enterprises @ LIBOR + 2% instead of 17.22% proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer ? (b) Whether Hon'ble ITAT is right in law and circumstances of the case to hold that guarantee charges is not an international transaction, even when Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders and Hon'ble ITAT in the case of (1) Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. In ITA No. 7033/Mum/2012 dated 25.03.2015. (2) Grabal Alok Impex Ltd. In ITA No. 1776/Mum/2015 dated 08.07.2016 have clearly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (d) :- (a) In its return of income the Respondent had claimed an amount of Rs. 2.99 crores as revenue expenditure. This being an expenditure incurred in attending in a DRUPA Exhibition-Germany (2008). This exhibition takes place every four years. Thus, the Assessing Officer held that the aforesaid expenditure could not be allowed in its entirety as revenue expenditure. This for the reason that the benefit of the expenditure was availed over a period of four years i.e. till the next exhibition is held. Therefore, by order dated 8 April 2013 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer allowed only ¼th of the total expenses of Rs. 2.99 crores as revenue expenditure pertaining to the subject Assessment Year. (b) Be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad over a certain period. (d) The Counsel for the Revenue placed reliance upon the order of the Assessing Officer, to contend that this appeal requires consideration and prays for admission. (e) We note that the Revenue does not dispute the admissibility of deduction under Section 37(i) of the Act as revenue expenditure. All that the revenue seeks to do is to spread the expenditure over a period of four years, while allowing the deduction in each of the four years under Section 37(1) of the Act. This on the ground that the trade exhibition takes place once in four years. There is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. The expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act has to be allowed so long as it is an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved. (f) Therefore in view of the self evident position in law and the decision of the Apex Court in Taparia Tools (supra) and of this Court in Asian Paints (supra), this question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 5. Regarding Question No. (e) :- (a) During the course of scrutiny proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed the Respondent had reimbursed Rs. 1.21 crores to its subsidiary Company for marketing expenses. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the amount paid to the subsidiary even if in the nature of reimbursement would have to be disallowed in the absence of tax being deducted at source under Section 40(a)(1) of the Act. Thus the Assessing Officer by his order dated....