TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... heard at length Sh. Arvind Sonde, ld. Counsel for the assessee and Sh. Vijay Shankar, ld. CIT(DR) on behalf of the Revenue. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record and case laws cited, we hold as follows. 3. Ground no. 1 is general in nature. 4. Ground no. 2 is on the issue of determination of Arms Length Price for Intra Group Services (IGS) received by the assessee. The DRP has called for a remand report from the TPO and thereafter chose to follow its own order for the AY 2014-15. The directions given by the DRP on the very same issue for the AY 2014-15 are repeated this year and the TPO was directed to follow these directions. At para 10 page 6, the DRP further records ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his issue against the Revenue. Despite such findings, the Assessing Officer, the DRP chose to stick to their stand, on the ground that the issue is before the Hon'ble High Court. Under these circumstances, we reject this request of the ld. DR. 7. Consistent with the view taken therein we uphold the contention of the assessee and allow this ground no. 2 of the assessee. 8. Ground no. 3 is on the issue of determination of ALP of Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion expenses. Similar to ground no. 2, the TPO and DRP chose to repeat their stand despite the issue being adjudicated in favour of the assessee by the ITAT in the earlier assessment years. This fact is recorded at para 2.2.5 and 2.2.6 by the DRP at page 17 of its order whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred in disallowing the payments made for IT services by the Appellant in the year under appeal without appreciating that the same have been accepted to be at arm's length by the Hon'ble Panel in Appellant's own case for AY 2009-10, AY 2010-11, AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14 and by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in AY 2011-12 (863 & 539/Kol/2016) and AY 2014-15 (ITA No. 2600/Kol/2018). 4.2 The Learned AO, TPO and DRP erred in making transfer pricing adjustment on the alleged excess cost incurred for AMP expenses as brand promotion for AE. The payment for AMP expenses have been accepted as not excessive in the Appellant's own case in preceding years (i.e. for all the assessment years preceding to AY 2010-11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nch we allow ground No. 9 raised by the assessee." 14. Consistent with the view taken therein, we allow this ground of the assessee. 15. Ground no. 6 is on the issue of depreciation on moulds. This issue is also covered by the order of the ITAT in his own case for the AY 2014-15 at page 20 para 38 the Tribunal held as follows: "38. As the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case (supra) in I.T.A. No. 2489/Kol/201 for A.Y 2013-14, ( where the ITAT restored this matter back to the file of AO f fresh adjudication and the assessee is at liberty to adduce fresh evidences before the AO in support of its contentions) and there is no change in facts and law and the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to by both parties. This issue is also set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 21. The assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal which reads as follows: "1. The AO / DRP erred in not granting the Appellant deduction of 'education cess on incometax' and 'secondary and higher education cess on income-tax' while computing the Appellant's total income for the year under consideration." 22. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the judgement of Hon'ble High Court Bombay & Goa Tax Appeal No. 17 of 2003 in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. JCIT [2013] 37 taxmann.com 341 (Bombay) as well as the decision in ITC Ltd. vs. ACIT [2003] 79 TTJ 14 (Kolk....