TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1867
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e companies; (iii) in denying the deduction u/s 10A for the reason that Form No.56F was not filed along with the return of income; and (iv) by the disallowance of Rs.21,29,578 as prior period expenditure. 2. The assessee has also raised a ground against the reference to a special audit u/s 142(2A) dated 26.3.2013, but at the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee does not wish to press ground of appeal No.2 against the reference to the special audit, since the assessee did not raise any such objection before the AO. Ground of appeal No.2 is accordingly rejected. 3. In addition to the above, the assessee has also raised an additional ground of appeal against the AO/DRP treating the amount of Rs.14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able to the assessee and under TNMM, arrived at their average margin at 46.5%. The assessee objected to the proposed adjustment. The TPO however, observed that the assessee did not file any specific comments on the comparables other than the general remark that "none of the comparable are functionally comparable as they are into different functions and the taxpayer is in engineering function of ITES. The TPO, therefore, rejected the assessee's objection and adopted 12 companies as the final comparables and arrived at the ALP margin of 27.49% and after allowing the working capital adjustment, arrived at the average margin of 23.8% as against the margin of 12.93% reported by the assessee. Accordingly, an adjustment was proposed by the TPO and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansactions only for the purpose of ALP determination and also to consider the internal TNMM as the most appropriate method. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon various decisions, particularly of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Twinkle Diamonds (ITA No.8107 & 8358/Mum/2011) dated 6th May, 2013, wherein it was observed that the TP adjustment is required to be made only with respect to AE transactions and therefore, the computation was required to be made only with respect to the operating expenses attributable to the sales to the AEs. Further, the learned Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal at Bangalore in the case of Genisys Integratin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal No.3.5 against the comparables adopted by the TPO becomes infructuous and is accordingly rejected. 12. As regards Ground of appeal No.4, we find that it is against the denial of deduction u/s 10A on the ground that Form No.56F was not filed along with the return of income. It is seen from the assessment order, that the assessee has filed e-return and there is no possibility of filing Form No.56F along with the e-return of income. It is also seen that the assessee has filed Form No.56F during the assessment proceedings and before completion of the assessment. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of American Data Solutions India (P) Ltd (2014) 45 Taxmann.com 379 (Kar.HC) has held that the appellate proceedings are the contin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iasco of SCSL emerging during the year therefore, the same was written off. The AO accepted that the Collins & Aikman Corporation appears to be bankrupt during the year. But he observed that the cheque for full and final settlement was received by the assessee from "Collins & Aikman Litigation Trust Distribution Account" on 11.10.2012, which does not fall in the financial year 2008-09 relevant to the A.Y 2009-10 and therefore, the assessee could not have concluded that the debt is irrecoverable particularly since it had filed a suit for recovery and it could not have known as to what would be the result of its suit, and that in these circumstances, it was not possible to write off bad debts. He therefore, disallowed the claim of bad debt. S....