AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 661
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provisions of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act) alleging the same to have been incurred for earning exempt dividend income. 1.1 That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in affirming the action of the assessing officer in computing disallowance of administrative expenses, by allocating 0.5% of the total investments made by the appellant during the relevant previous year, on the assumption that certain administrative expenses must have been incurred to earn the exempt income without appreciating that only expenses having proximate nexus with the earning of exempt income could have been disallowed under section 14A of the Act. 1.2 That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 78,55,100 made by the assessing officer under section 14A of the Act. 1.3 That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in directing the assessing officer to disallow interest expenditure incurred on borrowed funds utilized for making investment in shares/mutual funds on the basis of bank statement under section 14A, without appreciating that the appellant had mixed pool of funds wherein surplus funds were suff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f. Tarun Khanna, a non-resident, for rendering consultancy services for scenario planning exercises of the appellant, under section 40(a)(i) for alleged failure on the part of appellant in not deducting tax at source therefrom. 5.1 That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the skills/ experience utilized by the consultant for rendering services would amount to 'make available' within the meaning of Article 12(4) of the India-USA DTAA. 6. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the assessing officer / TPO in making addition to the extent of Rs. 6,57,195/- on account of alleged difference in arm's length price of international transaction of import of components, spare parts etc., applying CUP method instead of TNMM applied by the appellant as the most appropriate method. 6.1 That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that having regard to nature and class of the international transactions of purchase of spare parts and components, TNMM was correctly applied as the most appropriate method, as per section 92C of the Act. 6.2 That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in holding that for d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....41,51,497/- from investments held in shares and mutual funds, as under: Particulars Amount (in crores) Dividend on shares of Hero Honda Finlease Ltd. 1.49 Dividend on other shares 1.14 Dividend from investment in Mutual funds 11.78 Total 14.41 3.0.1 It was further submitted that the assessing officer computed disallowance of Rs. 4,04,58,600/- by applying Rule 8D of in the following manner: - Expenditure directly relating to exempt income Nil - Interest expenditure apportioned in the ratio of average investments to average total assets 78,55,100 - 0.5% of average investments 3,26,03,500 Total disallowance 4,04,58,600 3.0.2 It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance made by the assessing officer under section 14A of the Act to the extent of Rs. 3,26,03,500/- being 0.5% of the total investments on the assumption that certain administrative expenses must have been incurred to earn exempt income. It was pointed out that further, the Ld. CIT (A) remanded the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 78,55,100/- on account of interest expenditure to the assessing officer who, vide set aside order dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 169 (Del. ITAT) - PukhrajChunilalBafna vs. DCIT: 65 SOT 187 (Mum. ITAT) - DCIT vs. Smita Conductors Ltd.: 16 SOT 251 (Mum. ITAT) - DCIT vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd: 152 TTJ 522 (Amr. ITAT) - CIT v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.:237 CTR 164/207 Taxman 2 (Kar.) 3.0.6 The Ld. AR submitted that in the present case, no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income. The expenses debited in the profit and loss account pertained to main business activity of manufacturing two wheelers and were unrelated to earning of dividend income. Further, it was submitted that the revenue earned from manufacturing activity during the relevant previous year was Rs. 8,596.81 crores as against dividend income of Rs. 14.41 crores being 0.16% of total revenue. It was also pointed out that out of the total income of Rs. 14.41 crores, a sum of Rs. 12.24 crores was earned from the following two investments that were quite old, requiring no administrative/management effort or any other cost in earning the same: Income from UTI's Unit 64 Rs. 10.75 crores Dividend from Hero Honda Finlease Ltd. Rs. 1.49 crores Rs. 12.24 crores 3.0.7 It was further ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also upheld the said method in the appeal for AY 2015-16, in the absence of any dissatisfaction by the AO. We accordingly restore the matter back to the file of the AO to compute disallowance on the same basis in the year under consideration after taking requisite details from the assessee and giving opportunity of hearing by following the principle of natural justice. The ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 6.0.0 With respect to Ground No. 2 to 2.2, the Ld. AR submitted that the same related to disallowance of deduction of Rs. 2,30,53,828/- claimed under section 80IA of the Act in respect of captive power generating unit situated at Gurgaon. At the time of hearing before us, it was submitted by the learned counsel that in view of the power supply constraints in the area of Gurgaon, Haryana, the assessee had set up power plant in order to meet the requirement of power of its manufacturing unit at Gurgaon. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 2,30,53,826/- under section 80IA of the Act in respect of the power generated at the aforesaid unit and captively consumed by the assessee. The deduction claimed was duly supported by Chartered Accountant's Report. It was submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment years 2009-10 and 2004-05. 7.0 The Ld. DR relied on the order of the AO. 8.0.0 We have gone through the records. Though by order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the Tribunal for assessment year 2006-07, the Tribunal had decided the issue against the assessee, subsequently, the said order was rectified by the Tribunal vide order dated 6.9.2013. In the order for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Tribunal after considering the aforesaid, held as under: "124. We find that the expression market value 'inter-unit transfer has been defined under Explanation to section 80IA of the Act as follows: "Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, ―market value‖, in relation to any goods or services, means- (i) the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open market; or (ii) the arm's length price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where the transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA." The aforesaid definition endorses the meaning of market price' explained by the Courts in several decisions, i.e., the price that such goods or services would ordinar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y units'. Considering that the original decision was taken on a mistaken belief, it was not a correct decision and, thus, cannot be followed. In the given facts, where different rates for supply of power are available, we agree with the decision of Jaipur bench of Tribunal in the case of Sri Cement Ltd. (supra), wherein while applying the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd.: 88 ITR 192 it was held as under :- "12. On perusal of the above, it could be clearly seen that the statute provides that the assessee must adopt 'market value' as the transfer price. In the open market, where a basket of 'market values' [say like, independent third party transactions, grid price (average annual landed cost at which grid has sold power to the assessee), power exchange price for the relevant period etc.] are available, the law does not put any restriction on the assessee as to which 'market value' it has to adopt, it is purely assessee's discretion. So long as the assessee has adopted a 'market value' as the transfer price that is sufficient compliance of law. AO can adopt a different value only w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also clearly not tenable Further, in case there are options the option favorable to the assessee is to be adopted. This is a wellsettled principle of law laid down by Courts time and again including Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd. (supra) and other High Courts as pointed out by the Authorised Representative. 13. In the light of the aforesaid, we hold that: (a) the value adopted by the assessee be it value as per independent third party trading transactions or as per power exchange (IEX etc.) or any other independent transaction (for the relevant period and which has taken place in the relevant area where the eligible unit is located) constitute 'market value' in terms of Explanation to s. 80-IA(8); (b) the value at which State grid has sold power to the cement unit of the assessee (average annual landed cost) also constitute 'market value' in terms of Explanation to s. 80-IA(8) but the value at which State grid or third party has purchased power from the power unit of the assessee, which represents its power which is sold when not required by the cement unit, does not constitute 'market value' in terms of Explanation t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4-05. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under 80IA of the Act in relation to the generation of power cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, allow this ground of appeal raised by the assessee. 9.0.0 Grounds of appeal nos. 3 to 3.1 pertain to disallowance of the claim of additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act made by the assessee. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that in terms of section 32(1)(iia), additional depreciation on new plant and machinery acquired and installed during the year is available, subject to condition of increase in installed capacity of the relevant industrial undertaking. It was submitted that the assessee claims to have increased its installed capacity during the year, thereby entitling it to additional depreciation under the aforesaid section, whereas the claim of the AO is that the relevant plant and machinery installed during the year did not enhance the production of the assessee and, therefore, the same had no nexus/co-relation with the increase in installed capacity. Ld. AR submitted that during the relevant previous year, the assessee invested Rs. 105.8 crores and Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a plant where the machinery has been added after October 2005 of Rs. 36.57 crores the increase in production is of only 45730 over a period of 151 days whereas in the first half of the year where the addition to machinery is very small almost similar quantity is been produced. This implies that addition of machinery had either no effect or very minimum effect on the production capacity. It appears that more production is linked to the demand and supply position rather than increase in the capacity. This fact gets further reinforced that the peak production in respect of both the plants of 123351 units in Gurgaon and 117000 units in Dharuhera had simultaneously taken place in the month of October 2004. This factor clearly establishes the fact that the machinery acquired by the assessee was more related to the change in the technology for producing a newer engine i.e. core 1 technology rather than addition to the installed capacity. Even in case of Gurgaon plant where an argument could be raised that there has been investment of Rs. 37.57 crores before October and that had resulted due to the increased production. However, that also doesn't appear to be a correct view because in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "32. In respect of depreciation of- ........................................... (iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been acquired and installed after the 31st day of March, 2002, by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing, a further sum equal to fifteen per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii) : Provided that such further deduction of fifteen per cent shall be allowed to- (A)a new industrial undertaking during any previous year in which such undertaking begins to manufacture or produce any article or thing on or after the 1st day of April, 2002; or (B)any industrial undertaking existing before the 1st day of April, 2002, during any previous year in which it achieves the substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than ten per cent: Provided further that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of- a) any machinery or plant which, before its installation by the assessee, was used either within or outside India by any other p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... business of inter alia manufacture or production of any article or thing. It was argued that the intention of the legislature was to give incentive to investment in new plant and machinery de hors actual increase in production from such installation. It was argued that the intention of the amendment was not to discriminate incentives on investments made pre and post 31.03.2005, but to simplify and remove hardship in the provisions, in order to extend the benefit of additional depreciation on new investments in plant and machinery without any further condition. 9.0.5 It was further argued that, even otherwise the AO and the Ld. CIT (A) have erred in denying the aforesaid claim of deduction, since what they were comparing was the nexus of increase in production with installation of relevant plant and machinery, whereas the requirement of law was only increase in overall installed capacity of the relevant industrial undertaking. 9.0.6 The Ld. AR, thereafter, invited our attention to the details of the installed capacity at the relevant Gurgaon and Dharuhera plants, which was undisputed by the lower authorities to contend that the relevant plants satisfied the condition of incre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....argued that, there was ambiguity in the language of section 32(1)(iia) and that the presence of the condition of increase in installed capacity only amplified that the increase in such investment was concomitant of the eligible plant and machinery. It was further argued that, the assessee had erred in filing the present ground of appeal, since there was no grievance to the assessee from the order of CIT (A), in as much as the CIT (A) had only remitted the matter back to the AO for verification. 11.0 In the rejoinder the Ld. Counsel for the assessee only made an additional argument that the ground of appeal filed by the assessee was valid, since if the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) are to be understood in the right spirit, then there was no need for the verification directed to be carried out by the Ld. CIT (A). 12.0.0 We have heard both the parties and find substantial force in the contentions of the assessee company. We find that the language of section 32(1)(iia) reproduced supra, is plain and unambiguous. On a plain and literal reading of the said section, we find no condition requiring nexus of the relevant plant and machinery acquired and installed during the year wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ired and installed after 31-3-2002 by an assessee, who was already engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. The said provision does not state that the setting up of a new machinery or plant, which was acquired and installed up to (sic. after) 31-3-2002 should have any operational connectivity to the article or thing that was already being manufactured by the assessee. Therefore, the contention that the setting up of a wind mill has nothing to do with the power industry, namely, manufacture of oil seeds etc. is totally not germane to the specific provision contained in section 32(1)( iia) of the Act. 6. In such circumstances, we are not able to appreciate the contention of the learned standing counsel for the appellant on the ground that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as confirmed by the Tribunal should be interfered with. It cannot also be said that setting up of a windmill will not fall within the expression setting up of a new machinery or plant. We do not find any error in the conclusion of the Tribunal in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We, therefore, do not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the revenue and we feel that the intermediary product viz., pulp produced by the company being a marketable commodity the increase in the installed capacity for claiming benefit of additional depreciation under the above provision can be in the production of intermediary viz., pulp. We therefore agree with the finding of the Tribunal and dismiss the department appeal." * CIT v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd: 321 ITR 477 (Mad) * CIT v. Texmo Precision castings: 321 ITR 481 (Mad) 12.0.1 The ratio emanating from the aforesaid decisions squarely supports the aforesaid interpretation of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. As regards the condition of increase in installed capacity, we have seen the facts and there is no dispute by the AO/Ld. CIT (A) as well on the increase in installed capacity of assessee. The same is certified by auditors and also reported in notes to audited accounts reproduced supra. In view of the above, we delete the disallowance made by the AO and hence the ground of appeal is allowed. 13.0.0 The Ld. AR submitted that Grounds of Appeal Nos. 4 - 4.1 relate to disallowance of portfolio management expenditure of Rs. 27,68,039/- claimed by the assessee as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of DCIT vs. KRA Holding & Trading (P.) Ltd.: 54 SOT 493 wherein portfolio management fee paid by the assessee was held to be allowable as deduction under Section 48 while computing capital gains arising from sale of shares. It was the plea of the Ld. AR that section 48 allows deduction of - (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer of capital asset or (ii) cost of acquisition of asset, which are reduced from the sale consideration at the time of computing capital gains under section 45 of the Act. It was argued that if the portfolio management expenditure is not to be considered as business expenditure, then the only nexus of such expenditure is either with purchase or sale of relevant instrument, which is clearly allowable deduction under either clause (i) or clause (ii) of section 48 of the Act. 13.0.4 As regards the finding of the Ld. CIT (A), that the said expenditure is related to earning of exempt income, the Ld. Counsel argued that the expenditure was incurred to make investment and earn capital appreciation there from, but not dividend income and, therefore, the said expenditure cannot be attributed to earing of exempt income. 13.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nclusion that the income from sale of shares/mutual funds/PMS etc. is taxable as capital gains instead of business income, then expenses incurred towards portfolio management fee and entry load PMS fee in respect of investment made in shares/mutual funds are not allowable as business expenditure and the same deserve to be allowed as deduction from income from capital gains as per provisions of the Act. Thus, ground no. 52 of the assessee is allowed by accepting alternate submission of the assesse and AO is directed to allow the impugned expenditure incurred by the assessee towards portfolio management fee and entry load PMS fee from the income under the head of capital gains in accordance with relevant provisions of the Act. Finally, ground no. 52 of the assessee is allowed." 15.0.1 We respectfully agree with the aforesaid findings of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. We also find that if the expenditure is not allowed as business deduction, then the same ought to be allowed as deduction under either clause (i) or clause (ii) of section 48 of the Act while computing income arising from investments under the head capital gains. The Tribunal in the aforesaid order has also ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Indo-USA DTAA wherein it was argued that the payment was not taxable in India, which overrode the provisions of the Act including Section 9(1)(vii). The Ld. CIT (A), however, did not agree to contentions of the assessee and upheld the disallowance. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) did not allow the benefit of Treaty on the ground that there was no exemption available in as much as the vendor had "made available" advice to the assesee, which was not exempt under the relevant provision of Treaty. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT (A), however, did not give any finding on the alternate contention of the AO regarding the expenditure to be capital or revenue in nature. 16.0.1 In support of the grounds of appeal, the Ld. AR argued that it is now settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E. India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. vs. CIT: 327 ITR 456, that if the payment is not taxable in India as per the provisions of Treaty, then the payer-assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Act. It was argued that the aforesaid payment was not taxable in India as per Article 12 of Indo-USA DTAA which was applicable to income earned by n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uring benefit is also not correct, since the consultancy services of Shri Khanna did not result in acquisition of any asset/intangible right in the nature of a capital asset, or enduring benefit increasing the profit earning apparatus of the company. The services were rendered in connection with the existing business of the assessee company and, therefore, benefit, if any, derived, formed integral part of the existing business/apparatus and not for addition thereto. Thus, the fees paid by the assessee to Shri Tarun Khanna cannot be characterized as capital asset. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in assessee's own case, reported at 372 ITR 481 wherein disallowance of royalty paid to foreign JV partner on the similar issue was deleted on the ground that payment of royalty does not result in enduring benefit in the capital field to be treated as capital expenditure. It was submitted that the disallowance of fee paid by the assessee to Shri Tarun Khanna on the alternate ground of being capital expenditure also deserves to be deleted. 17.0 The Ld. CIT (DR) heavily relied upon by the orders passed by the AO and the Ld. CIT (A). 18.0.0 We have h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the international transaction of import of components aggregating to Rs. 177.35 crores. In the Transfer Pricing Study, the assessee applied TNMM for the purpose of benchmarking. The TPO, however, made a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 6,57,195/- applying CUP method by comparing the prices of import of two components, viz., sprocket timing and sprocket camp, from the associated enterprises with that of the prices of components sourced locally from domestic suppliers, after their indigenization. The Ld. CIT (A) upheld the transfer pricing adjustment holding that the associated enterprise charged excessively high price for the two components which cannot be attributed to geographical variation. 19.0.1 The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee imported only those components/spare parts from the associated enterprise where such products were not available in the domestic market (throughout the relevant previous year) or could not be supplied by the domestic vendors in desired quantity and quality. The price paid to the local vendor(s), cannot, in such circumstances, be regarded as benchmark to determine the arm's length price for products imported from the associated enterprise. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... through the records. Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessment year 2004-05 has held as under: "On a careful consideration of the matter, we find that out of the total purchases of Rs. 20,46,58,682/- from the domestic market, the assessee imported from associated enterprises the components worth Rs. 22,83,666/- which does not constitute any significant portion thereof. We, therefore, having regard to the directions given by the Tribunal for earlier years and the approach adopted by the ld. AO while deleting the addition on this score, hold that the transfer pricing adjustment to the tune of Rs. 7,05,334/- made by the TPO cannot be sustained and accordingly while allowing the ground delete the same. 21.0.1 In view of the latest order of the Tribunal wherein this issue has been dealt with in detail, which we respectfully follow, we hold this issue in favour of the assessee and hold that the transfer pricing adjustment to the tune of Rs. 7,05,334/- made by the TPO cannot be sustained and accordingly while allowing the grounds delete the same. 22.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed. 6302/Del/2015 (Departmental appeal): 23.0.0 We....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter allowing depreciation @ 25%. It was submitted that the assessee has been manufacturing two wheelers in India since 1985 on the basis of technology provided by M/s Honda Motors Co. Ltd., Japan ("Honda") and pursuant to the agreement dated 2.06.2004 had paid Model fee of Rs. 26,47,07,683/- to Honda. The assessing officer held the same to be capital in nature and made a net disallowance of Rs. 19,85,30,762/- after allowing depreciation @ 25%. It was further submitted that following the appellate orders for the earlier years, the Ld. CIT (A) had deleted the disallowance made by the assessing officer. 26.0.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that in assessee's own case for the AY 1996-97, the Tribunal took the view that the model fee paid by the assessee to Honda is allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act as revenue expenditure on the ground that the payment was only for right to use the technology/know-how and there was no ownership of the intellectual property which remained to be with Honda. This view of the Tribunal was challenged by the revenue but the Hon'ble Delhi High Court declined to entertain the appeal. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court was accepted by the Depa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecord. It is, clear that for quite a long time there is consistency in the view taken by the Tribunal as upheld by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and Hon'ble Apex court. Therefore, the issue is no longer res integra and is in favour of the assessee. We uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, we dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. 29.0.0 Ground no. 3 relates to disallowance of export commission of Rs. 8,69,26,848/- paid to Honda Motor Company Ltd. (Honda), Japan under Section 40(a)(i) on ground that the same constituted royalty/fee for technical services on which the assessee was obliged to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Act. Alternatively, the AO disallowed the aforesaid amount on the following grounds: (i) The export agreement was for the benefit of Honda and not the assessee company, therefore, the payment of export commission was held to be not allowable under Section 37(1) (ii) The export agreement was in the nature of license acquired by the assessee for the purpose of making export to other countries where Honda had exclusive privilege to operate. The license was for a longer period of time and, theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue that cumulative effect of the two agreements is to be considered cannot be accepted. Both the agreements were entered into in different parts of time, one in the year 1984 and, the other in the year 2004 and both the agreements operate under different fields. By the first agreement, HMCL provided technical knowhow for manufacture and sale of two wheelers within the territory of India. By the export agreement, HMCL permitted the assessee to export the designated goods to the designated countries outside India. Therefore, both the agreements are to be interpreted independently. On the perusal of the export agreement, we are unable to agree with the Revenue that the export agreement is in the nature of royalty or fees for technical services. We find that the Authority for Advance Ruling has considered the issue of TDS on the export commission in the case of Spahi Project P.Ltd. (supra). .......................... ............................................................................................. 73. Similarly, 'fee for technical services' has been defined by way of Explanation-2 after Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act. From a plain readi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the royalty payment paid by the assessee by way of technical know-how agreement holding the same to be capital expenditure. From paragraph No.7 to paragraph No.29, we have discussed at length and have come to the conclusion that the payment of running royalty cannot be said to be capital expenditure. While doing so, we have also relied upon several decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Courts at pages 17 to 24. For the sake of brevity, we are not reproducing the same again but, we reiterate that the ratio of those decisions in the cases of Lumax Industries Ltd. (supra), Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. (supra), Sharda Motor Industrial Ltd. (supra), J. K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra), Climate systems India Ltd. (supra) and Munjal Showa Ltd. (supra) would also be applicable so as to arrive at the conclusion that the payment of running export commission paid as a percentage of export amount every year cannot be said to be capital expenditure. In view of the above, we delete the disallowance of export commission made by way of transfer pricing adjustment and also by way of general provisions of the Income-tax Act." 31.0.1 The aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal in AY 2006-07 has furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....97. - Further, the disallowance of provision made for warranty was also deleted by the Tribunal in AY 2004-05, 2007-08 and 2008-09. 33.0 The Ld. CIT -DR relied on the order of the AO. 34.0.0 We have perused the record. We find that the Tribunal, vide recent order dated 31.07.2019 passed in assessment year 2004-05, dismissed the appeal of the revenue holding as under: "36. Even for the Asstt. Year 2002-03, while following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Ltd. vs CIT, 314 ITR 62, the Tribunal deleted the addition and subsequently, similar addition was disallowed in respect of Asstt. Years 1999-2000, 1996-97, 1997-98, 2006-07, 2007-08 to 2009-10 by several orders of the Tribunal, which are to be found place in the paper book. On a reading of these orders, we are of the considered opinion that the issue is fairly settled and there is no need to reopen the same for taking fresh view. Learned CIT (A) deleted the addition by following the appellate orders and, therefore, we do not find any perversity in such finding. We uphold the order of ld. CIT (A)." 34.0.1 In view of the aforesaid, we find that the issue has been de....