TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1619
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n ('AMP') expenses. 22-27. Disallowance of payment of royalty on technology paid to Cadbury Enterprises Pvt Ltd. 28. Disallowance of service fees paid to Cadbury Enterprises Pvt Ltd. Singapore 29. Disallowance of service fees paid to Mondelez International Holdings LLC 30-31. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D 32-33. Allocation of expenditure at Baddi Unit-I & II 34. Levy of interest u/s.234C of the Act 35. Non grant of MAT credit 2. At the very outset, it is noted from the order sheet entries that though the present case has been adjourned on several occasion on account of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. ROCA Bathrooms Products Pvt. Ltd., wherein the Department has preferred SLP which has been admitted before the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is also noted from order sheet entry dated 25.06.2025 that the department has sought time for responding to additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the limitation in passing assessment order relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court (supra). However, as regards the said additional ground, the Ld. AR did not press for ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... TPO, vide order dated 30.10.2018 proposed a total adjustment of Rs. 319,87,41,472/- as per the break up given below: Nature of adjustment Amount (in Rs.) Adjustment of Advertising and Marketing expenses 287,49,53,229/- Adjustment of receipt of services from CEPT 10,69,60,319/- Adjustment of receipt of services from MIHL 21,60,90,172/- Payment of technical knowhow Royalty to CEPT 7,37,752/- Total 319,87,41,472/- 5. The Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order incorporating the TP adjustments. The Assessing Officer, besides the TP adjustment also made additions on the corporate tax front as follows - (i) Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D: Rs. 14,01,126/- (ii) Disallowance of by reducing the claim of assessee u/s 80IC of the Act for Baddi Unit-I (Rs. 31,05,89,492/-) and Unit II (Rs. 19,16,54,055/-): Rs. 50,22,43,547/- 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed its objections before the DRP. The DRP confirmed the adjustments/disallowances made by the TPO/Assessing Officer. The assessee, therefore, is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 31.10.2019 pursuant to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee is not the legal owner of the brand in India, the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee translates into development of AEs brand and, therefore, the assessee needs to be compensated. We find that the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2011-12 in ITA No.1240/Mum/2016, while considering an identical issue, has followed the order of another order of the co-ordinate bench [A.Y.2009-10 (ITA No.2214/Mum/2014] to decide the issue in assessee's favour by holding as under:- 10. We heard the parties and perused the materials on record. We notice that the co-ordinate bench in assessee's own case for A.Y.2009-10 (ITA No.2214/Mum/2014) has considered the similar issue and held that - "23. Considered the rival submission and material placed on record. We notice from the records that the identical ground has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA No. 1512/Mum/2013 for AY 2006-07 in assessee's own case on merits. For the sake of clarity, which is reproduced below:- 14. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, as could be seen from the material on record, in response....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e derived from the business in the hands of a person resident in the taxable territory. Thus, it can safely be concluded that TP provisions were part of tax administration even during the 1922 Act days though at infancy stage. The present provisions were been incorporated vide Finance Act, 2001. Same were further amended vide Finance Act, 2002 and are being amended from time to time to meet the new challenges thrown up by the dynamism of the current commercial and business realities. Having regard to the object for which provisions have been enacted, applicability of the said provisions has to be limited to situations where there is diversion of profits out of India or where there may be erosion of tax revenue in intra group transaction. So, intra-group transaction is the first precondition for invoking the TP provisions. Calculation of ALP is the next and logical step. But, if the first step itself is missing, the AO cannot go to the second stage. In other words, the AOs cannot climb the second storey of a building without reaching to the first storey if the existence of an IT and calculation of ALP can be compared with a double storeyed building. 3.4.1. We find that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Indian market post liberalization period and AMP played an important role in it. Here, we would also like to mention that there exists a fundamental and basic distinction between the provisions of section 37 and section 92 of the Act as the first is expense oriented and the second is pricing oriented. The FAA tried to incorporate the ingredients of Section 37 while dealing with the TP adjustments, when he talked of the higher expenditure ‟and" justification" of such expenditure. In our opinion, the approach of the FAA was notin accordance with the basic philosophy of TP provisions. In our opinion, it is the assessee who has to decide how much to spend for earning his income. The tax authorities are prevented from entering into the proverbial shoes of the assessee to decide the justification of the expenditure. The Act stipulates that in certain conditions only the so called higher expenditure can be questioned. The FAA had not proved that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for advertisement etc. was covered by those sections. If it was the case then the transaction would not fall under section 92 of the Act. Therefore, in our opinion he had adopted a totally in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in the transactions undertaken between an Indian entity and its overseas AE. In our opinion, a perceived/notional indirect benefit to the AE, due to incurring of certain expenditure by an assessee in India, is not covered by the TP provisions. It is a fact that the payment under the head AMP expenditure was made to third parties and that those parties were located in India. 3.4.3. We find that in the cases of Maruti Suzuki(supra), Whirlpool India(supra), Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd (ITA 643 of 2014 of Hon'ble Delhi HC), the issue of AMP expenses had been deliberated upon extensively and each and every argument raised by the TPO/DRP have been analysed thread bare. We would like to reproduce relevant portion of the judgment of Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd.(supra) and same reads as under: 53. A reading of the heading of Chapter X['Computation of income from international transactions having regard to arm's length price"]and Section 92(1) which states that any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the ALP and Section 92C (1) which sets out the different methods of determining the ALP, makes ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whom are non-resident (b) the transaction is in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property or provision of service or lending or borrowing money or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, incomes or losses of such enterprises, and (c) shall include a mutual agreement or arrangement between two or more AEs for allocation or apportionment or contribution to the any cost or expenses incurred or to be incurred in connection with the benefit, service or facility provided or to be provided to one or more of such enterprises. 57. Clauses (b) and (c) above cannot be read disjunctively. Even if resort is had to the residuary part of clause (b) to contend that the AMP spend of BLI is "any other transaction having a bearing" on its "profits, incomes or losses, for a 'transaction' there has to be two parties. Therefore for the purposes of the 'means' part of clause (b) and the 'includes' part. of clause (c), the Revenue has to show that there exists an 'agreement' or 'arrangement' or' 'understanding' between BLI and B&L, USA whereby BLI is obliged to spend excessively on AMP in o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der: "The other limb of the concept requires two or more persons joining together with the shared common objective and purpose of substantial acquisition of shares etc. of a- certain target company, There can be no "persons acting in concert" unless there is a shared common objective or purpose between two or more persons of substantial acquisition of shares etc. of the target company, For, de hors the element of the shared common Objective' or purpose the idea of "person acting in concert" is as meaningless as criminal conspiracy without any agreement to commit a criminal offence. The idea of "persons acting in concert" is not about a fortuitous relationship coming into existence by accident or chance. The relationship' can come into being only by design, by meeting of minds between two or more persons leading to the shared common objective or purpose of acquisition of substantial acquisition of shares etc. of the target company. It is another matter that the common objective or purpose may be in pursuance of an agreement' or an understanding, formal or informal; 'the acquisition of shares etc. may be direct or indirect or the persons acting in concert may coo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;. First of all, there has to be a clear statutory mandate for such an* exercise. The Court is unable to find one. To the question whether there is any 'machinery' provision for determining the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expenses, Mr. Srivastava only referred to Section 92F (ii)which defines ALP to mean a price "which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than AEs in uncontrolled conditions", Since the reference is to 'price' and to 'uncontrolled conditions 'it implicitly brings into play the BLT. In other words, it emphasises that where the price is something other than what would be paid or charged by one entity from another in uncontrolled situations then that would be the ALP. The Court does not see this as a machinery provision particularly -in light of the fact that -the-BLT has been expressly negatived by the Courtin Sony Ericsson. Therefore, the existence of an international transaction will have to be established de hors the BLT. 70. What is clear is that it is the 'price' of an international transaction which is required to be adjusted: The very existence of an internat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred by way of payment to related parties is not deductible where the AO is of the opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods." In such event, so much of the expenditure as is so considered by him to be excessive or unreasonable shall not be allowed as a deduction." The AO in such an instance deploys the 'best judgment' assessment as a device to disallow what he considers to be an excessive expenditure. There is no corresponding 'machinery' provision in Chapter X which enables 'an AO to determine what should be the fair 'compensation' an Indian entity would be entitled to if it is found' that there is an International transaction in that regard. In practical terms, absent a clear statutory guidance, this may encounter further difficulties. The strength of a brand, which could be product specific, may be "impacted by numerous other imponderables not limited to the nature of the industry, the geographical peculiarities, economic trends both international and domestic, the consumption patterns, market behavior and so on. A simplistic approach using one of the modes similar to the ones conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igation has to be avoided and issues have to be settled for once and all. We are of the opinion that after the judgments of Maruti Suzuki and Bausch & Lomb (supra)there is no scope of any other interpretation about the AMP expenditure. In the case under consideration, the AO/TPO has not brought anything on record that there existed and agreement, formal or informal, between the assessee and the AE to share/reimburse the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee in India. In absence of such an agreement the first and primary precondition of treating the transaction-in-question an IT remains unfulfilled. Conducting FAR analysis or adopting an appropriate method is the second stage of TP adjustments. The first thing is to find out whether the disputed transaction in is IT or not. Without crossing the first threshold second cannot be approached, as stated earlier. In the case under consideration, we are of the opinion that AMP expenditure is not an IT and therefore we are not inclined to restore back the issue to the file of the AO. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration, we are of the opinion that the FAA was not justified in upholding the order of the TPO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ind that this issue has also been decided by the Tribunal for A.Ys 2011-12 & 2012-13 and held as under:- 13. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The co-ordinate bench in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009- 10 (supra) has considered the issue of payment of royalty on technology to Cadbury Adams USA LLC, to Cadbury Enterprises Pvt. Ltd and Cadbury Schweppes Asia Pacific Pvt. Limited (now merged with Cadbury Enterprises Pvt. Ltd) and held that- "10. Considered the rival submission and material placed on record. We notice from the records that the identical ground has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA No. 7539/Mum/2012 for AY 2008-09 in assessee's own case on merits. For the sake of clarity, the same is reproduced below:- "With regard to disallowance of payment of royalty on trademarks paid to Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd 3.3.2 It is admitted position that the issue stood squarely covered in assessee's favor by the decision of this very bench in assessee's own case for AY 2006-07 wherein the matter has been concluded in the following manner: - 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld be seen from the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer, he has determined the arm's length price of royalty payment on trademark to SCOL at zero. In other words, he has disallowed royalty payment on trademark at 1% while allowing royalty payment on technical knowhow at 1.25% of net sales. The reasoning on which the Assessing Officer has denied royalty payment on trademark are basically that as per the terms of earlier agreement approved by the Government, the assessee can pay royalty for technical knowhow at the maximum rate of 2%, whereas, the assessee has paid royalty both for technical knowhow and trade mark aggregating to 2.25%. He has also referred to the Press Note issued by the Government clarifying that royalty payment cannot exceed 2% and further the royalty payment for technical know how subsumes royalty payment for trademark. In this context, the Transfer Pricing Officer has also referred to similar dispute arising in the preceding assessment years. It is evident that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the disallowance of royalty payment of trademark simply relying upon the order passed by him in assessee's own case for assessment year 2005-06. As coul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvations of the Tribunal while deciding identical issue in assessee's own case for assessment year 2005-06, in ITA no.5470/Mum/2012, dated 18th May 2016, which is as under: - 2.3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that while deciding the appeal for AY 2002-03(supra) the Tribunal has decided the issue as under: 37. We have heard the detailed arguments from both the sides. The basic issue is the correctness of ALP on the royalty payments made by the assessee company to its parent AE on account of technical knowhow and trademark usage. 38. From the arguments of the DR, made on behalf of the TPO, the agreement for paying royalty on technical know-how at 1.25% and trademark usage at 1.25%, were overlapping and thus, TNMM method used by the assessee was incorrect. According to the TPO, the best method to ascertain ALP in the interest case was CUP, as the transactions were controlled. This was reasonable, as no data was available from independent source to benchmark the transactions. 39. On going through the records and the orders of the revenue authorities, we find that in so far as the payment of royalty o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....foresaid view of Tribunal in assessee's own case, we delete the impugned adjustment of Rs. 1300.22 Lacs as made by Ld. AO in the final assessment order. Nothing has been shown to us that the aforesaid ruling is not applicable to the year under consideration. Ground No.3 stand allowed. With regard to disallowance of payment of royalty on technology paid to Cadbury Adams USA LLC. 3.4.2 We find that this issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal for AY 2006-07 wherein it has been held as under: - 22. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, the assessee has paid royalty to CAUSA @ 2.7% of net sales as per the agreement executed on 1st June 2006. It is the claim of the assessee that the payment of royalty is for use of trademark as well as technical knowhow. However, the Transfer Pricing Officer, after examining the agreement between the assessee and CAUSA has opined that the agreement only provided for use of trademark and it does not provide for use of technical knowhow. It is the say of the Transfer Pricing Officer that since as per the Government guidelines, payment of royalty on trademark under the automatic rout....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ong with trademark. Considering the submissions of the learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee that in subsequent assessment years royalty paid by the assessee @ 2.7% of sales was accepted by the Transfer Pricing Officer, the letter dated 26th April 2016, sought to be produced by the assessee as additional evidence, in our view, is of much significance since it will have a crucial bearing in determining whether CAUSA has authorised the assessee to use technical knowhow along with trademark, hence, is admitted as additional evidence. Even, without taking cognizance of the aforesaid additional evidence, the original as well as amended agreement make it abundantly clear that assessee has also availed technical knowhow from CAUSA. Further, the Departmental Authorities don dispute the genuineness or authenticity of the amended agreement. What they are disputing is the date from which the amended agreement is effective. If the departmental authorities in the subsequent assessment years have allowed payment of royalty both for trademark and technical know-how, there is no reason why it should not be allowed in the impugned assessment year, since, it cannot be said that the assessee was manuf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is covered by the above decision for the year under consideration also. Accordingly, we delete the TP adjustment made by the TPO towards payment of royalty on technology paid to Cadbury Adams USA LLC, and Cadbury Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. These grounds are allowed in favour of the assessee." 13. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we delete the TP adjustment made by the TPO towards payment of royalty on technology paid to Cadbury Adams USA LLC, and Cadbury Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the Grounds of appeal No. 22 to 27 raised by the assessee company are allowed. 14. In so far as Ground of appeal No.28 concerning disallowance of service fees paid to Cadbury Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Singapore, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in assessee's own case for A.Y.2013-14& 2014-15, ITA Nos. 7104/MUM/2017 & ITA No. 7404/Mum/2018, dated 20.09.2023 while considering the same issue has observed as follows: "14. Ground Nos. 28 to 30 pertain to disallowance of service fees paid to Cadbury Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. We notice that the facts and circumstances pertaining to this issue are identical for A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13, which, the co- ordinate bench has alre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was no international element involved in sale of imaging segment by assessee of its business to 'C' Ltd., authorities below were not justified in invoking transfer pricing provisions in respect of assessee's transaction - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, impugned adjustment made by revenue authorities was to be set aside - Held, yes [paras 49 and 63] [In favour of assessee] Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer pricing - Computation of arm's length price [Others] - Assessment year 2008-09 - Whether while determining ALP of international transactions entered into by assessee, TPO cannot adopt any other method except methods prescribed in section 92C(1)- Held, yes [Para 66] II. Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer pricing - Computation of arm's length price [Safe harbour rules] - Assessment year 2008-09 -Assessee had incurred certain expenses on behalf of its AE - As said expenses were to be reimbursed to assessee receipts on account of reimbursement was recovered on cost plus 10 per cent mark up TPO proposed mark up at the rate 12.5 per cent and made an adjustment accordingly- Whether since adjustment sought by TPO and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In the decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, 'Nextly, the Commission has elaborately discussed the object of introduction of Chapter XIX-Ain the Act, the history behind the introduction and schematic rationalization of the provisions of Chapter XIX-A brought about through Finance Act, 1987 to hold that in exercising its power under Chapter XIX-A it has almost an unbridled power to arrive at a settlement. This exercise of purposive interpretation by looking into the object and scheme of the Act and legislative intendment would arise, in our opinion, if the language of the Statute is either ambiguous or conflicting or gives a meaning leading to absurdity. We do not find any such problem in the provisions of the Act to which we have already referred to Sections 234A, 234B and 234C in clear terms impose a mandate to collect interest at the rates stipulated therein. The expression "shall" used in the said Section cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed as "may". There are sufficient indications in the scheme of the Act to show that the expression "shall" used in Sections 234A, 234B and 234C is used by the Legislature deliberately and it has not left any scope for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the Special Bench in the case of LG Electronics India (P.) Ltd. (supra), we hold that even on this legal issue, the assessee succeeds. Therefore, respectfully following the above decisions of the co-ordinate bench, we delete the TP adjustment." 15. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we delete the TP adjustment made by the TPO towards services fees paid to Cadbury Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the Ground of appeal No. 28 raised by the assessee company is allowed. 16. In so far as Ground of appeal No.29 concerning disallowance of service fees paid to Mondelez International Holdings LLC, we find that the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in assessee's own case for A.Y.2013-14& 2014-15 (ITA Nos. 7104/MUM/2017 & ITA No. 7404/Mum/2018), dated 20.09.2023 while considering the same issue has observed as follows: "16. Ground Nos. 31 to 33 raised by the assessee pertains to disallowance of service fees paid to Mondelez International Holdings LLC. This issue also stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee's own case for A.Ys 21011-12 & 2012-13 (supra), wherein the Tribunal held as under:- 18. The as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... making adjustment was not a method prescribed under the Act. b. Further relying on the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Kodak India Pvt., Barclays Bank PLC and Vedanta Ltd., it was held that matter cannot be remanded back when the TPO has failed to follow the prescribed method undersection 92C. (Refer Para 14 on page 13 of the ITAT order for AY 2009- 10) Since, facts and issues in relation to services availed from CSAPL (i.e. ground no. 8 to 10) and facts and issues in relation to services availed from CHL (i.e. ground 11to 13) are identical and as both the transactions have been benchmarked by MIFPL using TNMM, findings of ITAT for ground no. 8 to 10 are to be applied for ground no. 11 to 13 as well. The Tribunal has erroneously relied on the order for A.Y.2008-09, this being a mistake apparent from record may be rectified and the findings given in Para 14 to 16 may be adopted for Ground No. 11 to 13 also. 4. In view of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee and since the mistake being apparent on the face of record, we proceed to rectify the mistakes. 5. The concluding part, vide Para-19 and 20 of grounds No.11 to 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. 18. In so far as Grounds of appeal No.30-31 concerning disallowance under section 14A of the act read with rule 8D, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in assessee's own case for A.Y.2013-14& 2014- 15, ITA Nos. 7104/MUM/2017 & ITA No. 7404/Mum/2018), dated 20.09.2023 while considering the same issue has observed as follows: "18. Ground No.34 pertains to disallowance under section 14A of the act read with rule 8D. We notice that this issue is identical to the issue decided by the Tribunal for A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13 (supra) and that the facts and circumstances are also identical. We find that the co-ordinate bench, for A.Y 2011-12 & 2012-13 has decided the issue by following its earlier decision for A.Y 2009-10 and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer with the following observations: - "22. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. It is now settled position that when the own funds are available, no disallowance is warranted under section 14A read with rule 8D. For the year under consideration, the reserves and surplus of the company as on 31/03/2011 is at Rs. 89,988.09 lakhs and the investments made stands at R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ind that own funds in the shape of share capital & free reserves at yearend stood at Rs. 46266.97 Lacs as against investment of Rs. 31228.98 Lacs. Nothing has been brought on record by Ld. AO to establish thenexus of investments with borrowed funds. In fact, opening investments stood at Rs. 26663.91 Lacs and the assessee earned profit after tax for Rs. 15094.68 Lacs during the year under consideration which is more than incremental investments. Therefore, applying the ratio of cited decisions, we hold that no interest disallowance would be justified on the facts and circumstances. We order so. So far as the disallowance of direct /indirect expenses is concerned, we are of the view that since Rule 8D was applicable to this AY, the findings given in earlier orders of Tribunal would not apply to this year and the disallowance has to be worked out in terms of the Rule 8D. The Ld. AO, in draft assessment order, at para 6.4, has noted that the submissions made by assessee in defense of suo-moto disallowance could not be accepted as against the submissions of the Ld. Sr. Counsel that the requisite satisfaction was not recorded by Ld. AO before proceeding to apply Rule 8D. We are of the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessing officer with similar directions. This ground is allowed for statistical purpose. 19. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we remit the issue to assessing officer with similar directions. Thus, the Grounds of appeal No. 30 & 31 raised by the assessee company are allowed for statistical purposes. 20. In so far as Grounds of appeal No.32-33 concerning allocation of expenditure at Baddi Unit-I and Unit-II in turn affecting the assessee's claim u/s 80IC, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in assessee's own case for A.Y.2013-14& 2014-15, ITA Nos. 7104/MUM/2017 & ITA No. 7404/Mum/2018, dated 20.09.2023 while considering the same issue has observed as follows: "20. Grounds 35 to 36 pertain to allocation of expenditure at Baddi Unit-I and Unit-II. We find that this issue has been exhaustively considered by the co- ordinate bench in its order for A.Ys 2011-12 & 2012-13 (supra) and then arrived at the following conclusions:- "31. We heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. From the perusal of statement showing the basis of allocation of expenses to Baddi Unit I and II (page 430 and 431 of paper book) we n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as the Grounds of appeal No.34 regarding the levy of interest u/s. 234C of the Act, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the A.O has levied interest u/s. 234C of the Act on the assessed income whereas the provisions of Section 234C talks about levy of interest on income returned. We, therefore, remit the issue back to the A.O with a direction to examine the records and re-compute the interest u/s. 234C of the Act as per provisions of the said section. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.34 is allowed for statistical purposes. 23. In so far as the Grounds of appeal No.35 concerning non grant of MAT credit, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in assessee's own case for A.Y.2013-14& 2014-15, ITA Nos. 7104/MUM/2017 & ITA No. 7404/Mum/2018, dated 20.09.2023 while considering the same issue has observed as follows: "23. Ground No. 38 pertains to non grant of MAT credit. We find that the Tribunal while considering the appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 has observed as under with regard to similar issue:- "36. The Ld.AR submitted that the MAT credit is carried forward from A.Y.2010-11 and the credit was modified due to additions made in the assessment order for A.Y. 2010-....