TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 320
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer (hereafter TPO) relating to the assessment year (AY) 2011-12. The petitioner also prays that directions be issued to the Assessing Officer (hereafter AO) to compute the petitioner's claim of depreciation for AY 2011-12 under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of the written down value of the trademark, FABINDIA, as on 01.04.2010. 2. The purchase of the trademark in question was considered as an international transaction and a reference was made to the TPO. The learned TPO rejected the transfer pricing documentation and analysis submitted by the petitioner and passed an order determining the arm's length price (ALP) of the international transaction as Nil. 3. The assessment was based, inter alia, on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y him was also incurred out of necessity. It is also not necessary for the assessee to show that any expenditure incurred by him for the purpose of business carried on by him has actually resulted in profit or income either in the same year or in any of the subsequent years. The only condition is that the expenditure should have been incurred "wholly and exclusively" for the purpose of business and nothing more. It is this principle that inter alia finds expression in the OECD guidelines. As far as the objection of the Ld. TPO that whether there is any need for purchase of such intangible or not is concerned, we are of the view that what is to purchase and what not to purchase is not in the domain of the TPO - AO, because it is a business d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... intangible asset - trademark 'FABINDIA'-which it had acquired from Fabindia Inc. during the FY 2006-07. 7. The petitioner claimed depreciation of an amount of Rs. 39,55,078/- during the previous year 2010-11 relevant to the AY 2011-12 in respect of the intangible asset - the trademark FABINDIA. However, the AO disallowed the same by referring to the findings of the learned TPO as recorded in its order dated 15.10.2010 in respect of the AY 2007-08. The AO found that since the ALP of the asset FABINDIA had been determined at Nil, there was no question of claiming any depreciation in respect of the said asset. 8. The petitioner filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 27.02.2014 in respect of the AY 2011-12 before the CIT(A). Howe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has also been set aside by the Tribunal to the TPO for determining the arm's length price of international transaction qua purchase of intangibles. 8. In view of what has been discussed above, issue in controversy is also remanded back to the TPO/AO to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in view of the case laws discussed by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in AYs 2007-08 and 2009-10 (supra). Consequently, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes." 11. Clearly, the acquisition of the trademark during the financial year 2006-07 could not possibly be treated as an international transaction within the meaning of Section 92B of the Act, which was entered into during the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-3 (Delhi) u/s 92CA of the Act vide letter F.No. Addl. CIT/ Special Range-3/TPO/2019-20/ 307 dated 20.09.2020. In the reference letter it was also mentioned that the reference has been made subsequent to the approval received from the office of the Pr. CIT-3, New Delhi vide letter F. No. Pr.CIT-03/ DEL/ HQ/ TP/ 2019-20/ 1401 dated 19.09.2019. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the proceeding by TPO is as per the law and in terms of the remand of Ld. ITAT, as the proceeding has been initiated and concluded in the case of the assessee by the TPO after due compliance of provisions of the Section 92CA of the Act. Notably, the Ld. ITAT had remanded the issue to the file of the AO/ TPO after....