TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 659
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sallowances on following counts: (i) Disallowance u/s 43B - Rs. 13,79,823/- (ii) Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Rs. 4,60,000/- (iii)Unproved expenditure - Rs. 3,77,965/- (iv)Transfer Pricing Adjustment - Rs. 17,60,966/- Aggrieved against the additions made in the assessment order dated 22/03/2014, passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in toto. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee /appellant. 3. Shri Hari S. Raheja, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that he is not pressing ground No.1 of the appeal relating to disallowance of Rs. 13,79,823/- made under section 43B of the Act. 3.1. In respect of ground No.2, relating to addition on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the addition has been made in respect of loans taken by assessee from Ms. Titli Thind- Rs. 1,50,000/- and Ms. Anita Chavan - Rs. 3,10,000/-. The assessee had filed complete details of the loans along with confirmations from the lenders. Since, the assessee i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....393/Mum/2017 decided on 26/03/2019 allowed assessee's claim of amortization of expenditure on the project in ten equal instalments. 3.3. The ld. AR submitted that in ground No.4 of the appeal, the assessee has assailed addition made on account of Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment. The assessee had entered into transaction for supply of transformers with its AE in UK. The assessee filed audit report under section 92ECB of the Act. The assessee had computed profit margin on transaction with its AE at cost plus 10%. The Assessing Officer rejected the submissions of the assessee and estimated profit margin not only in respect of sale transaction but also in respect of service charges at cost plus 15%. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that the Assessing Officer has erred in computing profit margin in respect of international transaction by adopting margins of subsequent Financial Year. It was explained that profit margin on goods sold to the AE was 12% and the computation of the same was filed before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer rejected the same on the basis of the GP declared by the assessee in subsequent assessment year. The Assessing Officer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Officer before re-adjudicating this issue shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law. The ground No.2 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. 5.3. The ground No.3 of the appeal is with respect to rejection of assessee's claim of write off of project expenses Rs. 3,77,965/-. The assessee has amortized project cost that was shelved due to change in specifications, over a period of ten years. We find that similar claim was made by the assesse in AY 2012-13. The Assessing Officer disallowance the same for similar reasons. After being unsuccessful before the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A), the assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA NO.1393/Mum/2017 (supra). The Co-ordinate Bench after considering the facts allowed the assessee's claim of amortization. The facts in the impugned assessment year are identical. For parity of reasons we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition and allow write off of proportionate (10%) expenditure. The ground no. 3 of the appeal is allowed, accordingly. 5.4. In ground No.4 of the appeal, the assessee has assailed addition of Rs. 17,60,966/- made by the Assessing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of COVID-19. Thereafter, the lockdown was extended from time to time. Therefore, the pronouncement of order beyond the period of 90 days from the date of hearing is not under "ordinary" circumstances. The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. JSW Ltd., ITA No.6264/Mum/2018 for A.Y 2013-14 decided on 14/05/2020, under identical circumstances, after considering the provisions of Rule 34(5) of the ITAT Rules, 1963, judgements rendered By Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on the issue of time limit for pronouncement of orders by the Tribunal and the circumstances leading to lockdown held:- "10. In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that rather than taking a pedantic view of the rule requiring pronouncement of orders within 90 days, disregarding the important fact that the entire country was in lockdown, we should compute the period of 90 days by excluding at least the period during which the lockdown was in force. We must factor ground realities in mind while interpreting the time limit for the pronouncement of the order. Law is not brooding omnipotence in the sky. It is a pragmatic tool of the social order. The te....