TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 50
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovision of sales support services (held as marketing support services) alleging the same to be not at arm's length in terms of the provisions of Sections 92C(1) and 92C(2) of the Act read with Rule 100 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules"). 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the facts and in law, the DRP/AO /TPO erred in not appreciating the business model, functional, asset and risk analysis undertaken by the Appellant and have further erred in not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with Rules for the determination of the arm's length price for rendering sales support services. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP/Assessing Officer/TPO have erred in arbitrarily rejecting comparable companies identified by the Appellant that were functionally comparable and in arbitrarily selecting comparable companies which were not functionally comparable, and thereby choosing an incorrect set of comparable companies in an arbitrary and subjective manner. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP/ Assessing Officer/ TPO erred in arbit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re. 13. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP / AO erred in disallowing the expenditure of INR 10,040 paid for subscription charges for publication of advertisement alleging the same to be in the nature of donation and therefore, not an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 14. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in charging interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 2340 of the Act." 3. Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is general in nature and does not require any adjudication; hence, dismissed. 4. The issue raised vide Ground of appeal Nos. 2 to 9 is with regard to transfer pricing adjustment made in provision of sales support services to the Associated Enterprises (in short "AEs"). The Ld.AR for the assessee pointed out that it wishes to press Ground of appeal Nos. 2, 4 & 9 in this regard and also the additional ground No.9A. 5. The assessee has raised following additional ground of appeal:- 9A. "As facts of case and applicable law remain identical during period under appeal as in year relating to which Advance Pricing Agreement ("APA") was entered into subsequently, app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he DRP, the TPO re-determined the adjustment after considering the correct margin of 02 companies and made adjustment of Rs. 92,84,585/-. The Assessing Officer passed final assessment order making aforesaid adjustment in the hands of the assessee, against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal but before us it has pointed out that if limited issues are decided then the margin shown by the assessee would be within the margins of the finally selected comparables. The assessee is aggrieved by the inclusion of certain companies as comparables. 10. The first concern is APITCO Ltd. Our attention was drawn to the audited financial of the said company and it was pointed out that it was engaged in multiple segments and was not functionally comparable to the assessee. Further, arguments were made for the exclusion of Global Procurement Consultants Ltd.; TSR Darashaw Ltd.; Quippo Valuers & Auctioneers Pvt.Ltd. The Ld.AR of the assessee further pointed out that vide Ground No.9A, it has raised additional issue that in case the approach, basis adopted and conclusion reached in APA proceedings for the subsequent years are applied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-12 and pointed out that after obtaining Remand Report from the Assessing Officer, the said claim was allowed in the hands of the assessee. The Ld.AR for the assessee further pointed out that pursuant to the agreement of slum sale, vide agreement dated 20.06.2008, sum of Rs. 34 crores was paid to Mitsubishi and the difference between sale value and book value of the assets was booked and depreciation was claimed, though during the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR for the assessee points out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities Ltd.: (2012) 348 ITR 302 has held that goodwill was intangible asset and depreciation is to be allowed on it. Our attention was drawn to the order of the CIT(A) in Assessment Year 2011-12 and the Remand Report of the Assessing Officer which are placed at pages 25 to 29 of the Paperbook. The assessee further pointed out that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Triune Energy Services (P.) Ltd. vs DCIT [2016] 237 Taxman 230 (Delhi) observed that in view of Accounting Standard 10, consideration paid in excess of value of tangible assets was rightly classified as goodwill and therefore, further exercise to value goodwill was not warranted. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee, consequent to the terms and conditions of the Business Transfer Agreement, back to the file of Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the claim of the assessee after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee is also directed to produce all the facts before the Assessing Officer, who shall decide the same in accordance with law. 17. The next issue raised vide Ground of appeal No.12 is against the disallowance of Rs. 28,14,307/-. The Assessing Officer treated the said loss on account of restatement of forward contracts to be notional loss following CBDT instruction No.3 of 2010 and disallowed the same. The Assessing Officer also treated the transaction to be speculative transaction under section 43(5) of the Act. The DRP confirmed the disallowance of Mark to Market foreign exchange loss and in consequence the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order, against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 18. The Ld.AR for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. [2009] 185 TAXMAN 296 (Del.). The Ld.AR for the assessee further pointed out t....