TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Assessment Year is 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case as follows:- The assessee is a private limited company. It is engaged in the dealing of specialty chemicals meant for paper & pulp, leather, direct water treatment and other customer specific applications. The assessee is a subsidiary of Bulab Holdings Inc. USA. For the assessment year 2018-19, return of income was filed on 30.11.2018 declaring total taxable income of Rs. 8,35,75,210/-. While arriving at taxable income, the assessee had claimed as deduction u/s.37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the following payments made to its Associate Enterprise (AE) Buckman Laboratories International Inc.USA (Buckman US): a) For shared services availed during the year a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hibits the Appellant from sharing the knowhow. Also, international agreements which have greater ramifications with financial implications have to be interpreted very strictly. ii) The Appellant is deriving major portion of income from sale of traded goods. iii) Buckman India has not utilized the know-how in the business and thus the royalty is disallowed u/s 37 of the Act." 4. Aggrieved by the assessment completed by making aforesaid disallowances, the assessee filed an appeal before First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the AO by stating that the assessee had not established the services have been actually received by the assessee for making aforesaid payments. It was also stated by the CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same may be take on record and justice may be rendered. It was prayed the matter may be restored back to the files of AO for proper adjudication of the issues raised in this appeal. 6. The Ld.DR apart from supporting orders of the AO and CIT(A), did not have serious objection in restoring the matter to the files of the AO. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the records. The assessee in its submissions made before the First Appellate Authority (submissions dated 23.05.2024) had specifically requested that it may be granted an opportunity to represent its case through video conferencing or physical hearing before the order is passed. In spite of specific request made by the assessee, the assessee was not given an opportunity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity of shared service fees paid by the Appellant to AE: (in relation to Ground 8) (a) Documents issued by the AE towards shared service fee paid by the Appellant availed (on sample basis) i. Technical Reports 147-150 ii. Guide notes for marketing activities 151-152 (b) Email exchanges towards IT services received by the Appellant from AE i. Affidavit in relation to email exchanges 153-155 ii. Copies of sample e-mail exchanges towards IT services received by the appellant from AE 156-185 4 Analysis of margin earned by companies engaged in similar business 186 Further, to the above, the Assessee wishes to submit as under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... nature, an approval from the executive management is required to make available these documents to other parties. The same has been mentioned in our submission dated 23 May 2024 with the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Ld. CIT(A)). (refer page 399 of Factual Paper book) Also, these documents were not submitted as these were not expressly requested during the / assessments by the Ld. CIT(A) / Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO). As the Appellant has only recently obtained access to provide these documents before the [Hon'ble Tribunal for the sole requirement of this appeal, we wish to submit the aforementioned documents as supporting additional evidence in the aforementioned application. ....