TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 1197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21.09.2017 seeking condonation of delay. 3. After considering rival submissions, we are of the view that delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. In ground nos.(i) and (ii), the Revenue has challenged deletion of addition of Rs.1,87,18,942, being transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest charged on loan advance to Overseas Associated Enterprises (AEs). 5. Briefly, the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity and is engaged in manufacture and sale of tractor implements, linkage parts, system and forging. As stated by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), assessee was a part of Gripwell Group. 6.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the burden it has taken on behalf of subsidiaries had resulted in any tangible benefit either to it or to the group as a whole. Further, he observed, LIBOR is not applicable where the funds have been lent from rupee denominated fund as it would not be prudent for an enterprises to lend fund at a much cheaper interest rate than what is available as interest on rupee denominated loans. 7. Having held so, the TPO proceeded to apply the domestic Prime Lending Rate (PLR) applied by Indian Banks on commercial borrowings and determining the arm's length rate of interest on the loans advanced to the AEs at 14.74%. This resulted in a total adjustment of Rs.1,95,31,473. The adjustment proposed by the TPO was added to the income of the assessee b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ional High Court. Thus, he submitted, the issue may be restored back to the TPO for fresh benchmarking. 11. Strongly opposing the contentions of learned Departmental Representative, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Hence, there is no justifiable reason to restore the matter back to the TPO. 12. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. 13. In so far as factual aspect of the issue is concerned, there is no dispute that the assessee has advanced foreign currency loans to two related parties located in USA and Netherlands. It is also evident, the assessee has charged interest to the concerned parties at fixe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt have not been followed, we are not convinced. 15. Considering the fact that the assessment year involved is 2010- 11 and more than 12 years have passed, we are disinclined to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer at this stage. Thus, having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case in the light of judicial precedents cited before us, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Grounds raised are dismissed. 16. In ground no. 3, the Revenue has challenged deletion of disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to Rs.1,41,63,945 under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 17. Briefly, the facts are, in course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... loan was given in earlier F.Y and the assessee had sufficient own funds to give the loan. It is equally true that no disallowance was made in the earlier Assessment Year though the DRP 19 has observed that rest judicata is not applicable under Income Tax proceedings but, in our considered opinion, when the facts are same, and the law has not changed, then the rule of consistency ought to have been followed. Considering the facts of the case in totality, we do not find any merit in the addition of Rs. 72,23,773/- made by the Assessing Officer. We, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the same. Ground No. 4 is, accordingly, allowed." 20. Considering that there is no difference in factual position in the impugned assessment y....