TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1760
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itional grounds: "Validity of the Order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Income- tax Act, 1961: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) erred in passing the draft assessment order dated September 30, 2011 without following the mandate as laid down under section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Appellant prays that the said draft assessment order be held as void-ab-initio, bad in law and illegal and consequently the entire assessment ought to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in issuing a notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act along with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at similar additional grounds were taken up by the assessee for the A.Y. 2006-07 also. Vide order dated 21-08-2019, the Tribunal in ITA No.1470/PUN/2010 has dismissed such additional grounds by noting that no demand notice was directed to be issued by the AO pursuant to the draft order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C of the Act and hence the same could not treated as a final assessment order. Following the precedent, we dismiss these additional grounds of appeal. 4. The next additional ground is against the claim of Education Cess. Both the sides are in agreement that similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case in its favour for the earlier years including the aforesaid assessment year 2006-07. Following the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led in this appeal is against the transfer pricing addition in the international transaction of Indenting Commission. 9. Here again, it is found that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) proposed the transfer pricing addition on the similar pattern as was done for the earlier years. The Tribunal in ITA No.736/PUN/2011 vide its order dated 05-08-2019 for the A.Y. 2005-06 considered such issue and deleted the addition by observing that Material cost and Depreciation cost etc. were required to be included in the base of total costs for the purpose of computing the arm's length price. This order was based on a categorical finding rendered by the ld. CIT(A) on pages 27 and 28 of his order to the effect that if Material cost and Depreciation etc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on. In view of these facts, this ground is not allowed. 11. The next ground is against capitalization of expenditure on the Premises. Here again, it is found that the facts and circumstances of this ground are mutatis mutandis similar to those of preceding years. The Tribunal for the A.Y. 2006-07 and earlier years has upheld capitalization of expenses in relation to the Premises at 40%. Following the precedent, we direct accordingly. 12. The next issue is about confirmation of disallowance at 10% of Miscellaneous expenses. The AO observed that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 14.31 crore which included Software development expenses and Expenses on premises. Those two items were separately dealt with by him which, we have als....