TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1874
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rring to other Ground 4 which contains sub-grounds (a) to (f), Ld. Counsel read out the same and the same are extracted as under : "4. TPO/AO erred in making following specific TP adjustments (few of them have been erroneously upheld by DRP : (a) The Ld. TPO/AO erred in making a TP adjustment for recovery of management expenses to the tune of Rs. 12,80,000/- when the expenses are incurred by the assessee for his own investment purpose and not for or on behalf of the AE. (b) The Ld. TPO/AO erred in making and adjustment for mark up to be recovered from AE to the tune of Rs. 1,75498/- being the mark @13.71% on aforesaid Rs. 12,80,000/-. (c) The Ld. AO.TPO has erred in taking benchmarking rate of interest @1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayments of Rs. 12,80,000/- on account of professional fee. These payments of Rs. 12,80,000/- constitutes an expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purposes of his own investment in a company abroad. These are the Professional Management Fee paid to Mr. J. Sagar Associates (Rs. 10,80,000/-) and to S.S. Iyer and Company (Rs. 2,00,000/-). The page No. 320 of the paper book is relevant. These parties have rendered professional services to the assessee in connection with the investment of share application money in Foreign company named M/s. Koderat Investment Ld. (Italy). In the ledger, it is described as a "being professional fees" and "disbursement for services" rendered from June 2008 to September 2008 including teleconferences with K.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessee. 6. On hearing both the parties, we find it is clear from the records that these transactions are independently undertaken with the professional bodies which are not connected in any fashion with the assessee. There is no evidence on record to suggest that M/s. J. Sagar Associates and M/s. S.S. Iyer and Company are related AEs of the assessee. In our view, the issue raised in Ground 4(b) is dependent on the Ground No.4(a) and the same is required to be remanded for want of facts, as argued by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us. Therefore, we direct the AO/TPO to consider the above and decide the issue afresh after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No.4(a) and (b) a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....change loss is resultant of set off of all the foreign exchange income earned from the partners. As per Ld. Counsel for the assessee, these amounts have nothing to do with the international transactions. Bringing our attention to various pages of the paper book, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that these losses constitute the result of gains is of the restatement of the existing loans with the banks. The banks are not its AEs and the loan transactions are not the international transactions for benchmarking by the TPO. According to Ld. Counsel, they do not constitute international transactions 11. After hearing both the parties, we perused the ledger extract connection to the foreign rate fluctuations and find the losses are mainly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ACIT 43 taxmann.com 150 (Delhi- Tribunal) order dated 11-03-2014 to support his contention. 14. Further, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Finance Act, 2012 brought in a retrospective amendment w.e.f. 01-04-2002 and amended the meaning of the "international transaction", whereby the transactions under debate were included within the meaning of the 'international transactions'. But, the judicial interpretations on the said amendment suggest that the said amendment does not have retrospective effect and at best, it will be applicable from A.Y. 2013-14 onwards. 15. On perusal of the above cited decisions of the Tribunal, we find that the referred decisions are relevant for the above proposition that 'amendment to the defin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the amendment to the Explanation to section 92B of the Act, though stated to be clarificatory has to be necessarily treated as effective from at best the A.Y. 2013-14 onwards and not to the A.Y. 2009-10 under consideration. In the current year, such guarantees does not constitute "international transactions". Same is the ratio as held by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. (supra). While deciding the above, both the Benches have kept their reliance on the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of New Skies Satellite BV (supra). 17. In our opinion, the DRP/TPO/AO erred in not considering the above in TPO's order dated 19-12-2012, DRP's order dated 30-09-2013, and also in the final assessment order dated 28-....