TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1418
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id appeal. 2. The first mistake pointed out in the order of Tribunal is with regard to adjudication of ground No.5 raised by the assessee in its appeal. As far as ground No.5 is concerned, the question before the Tribunal was with regard to determination of arm's length price (ALP) in respect of an international transaction of giving up loan b the assessee to its Associated Enterprise (AE) and interest income that the assessee ought to have received on such loan. It was the plea of the assessee that since the loan in question was in US Dollars, LIBOR rate of exchange + 200 points should be applied and interest income should have been determined accordingly. The Tribunal, however, remanded the issue to the AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal. Accordingly, the MP of the assessee on ground No.5 is dismissed. 5. The second mistake pointed out in the order of Tribunal is with regard adjudication of ground No.6 raised by the assessee in its appeal, which is again a transaction of giving of guarantee by the assessee to its AE. Here also, the Tribunal has remanded the issue to TPO for fresh consideration directing the TPO to analyse the transaction and then apply the appropriate rate of commission that the assessee ought to have charged in the international transaction of providing guarantee to AE. In para 5.3 to 5.7 of the MP, the assessee has contended that corporate guarantee is not an international transaction and that the Tribunal overlooked certain judi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... From the perusal of orders of the lower authorities, it is clear that the assessee had not raised this contention before the lower authorities. We find that the assessee had neither filed any application for admission of this additional ground of appeal nor had the assessee had filed evidence in support of the above contention. Therefore, in the absence of application for admission of additional grounds of appeal, the contention cannot be admitted as it is a mixed question of fact and law. Thus, grounds of appeal No.10 to 13 are dismissed." 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that this issue was agitated by the assessee before the DRP. He brought to our notice that in the submissions before the DRP, this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d come to the conclusion that royalty income had no direct nexus with industrial undertaking, the profits of which were eligible for deduction u/s. 10A and therefore they were not to be included as part of the business income while allowing deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. It was the conclusion of the Tribunal in the order that there is no material brought on record showing that the IPRs, the use for which royalty income was generated, were IPRs developed by industrial undertaking which claimed deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. In the MP, the assessee has pointed out that even the AO in the order of assessment has treated the royalty income as business income and not income from other sources. It was also submitted that neither....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rency from export turnover while computing deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. The DRP in its direction directed the AO to verify the exact nature of expenditure incurred in foreign currency which was excluded from the export turnover to follow the Tribunal's order in assessee's own case for the AYs 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2008-09. The AO while giving effect to the order of DRP did not allow the claim of assessee. The Tribunal, however, decided the aforesaid ground as follows:- "16.3 We find that the Hon'ble DRP had set aside the issue to the AO to verify exact nature of the expenditure incurred and directed the AO to follow decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment years 2004-05,2006-07 and....