TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1647
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case and in law, the final assessment order dated 28 May 2022 passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Circle 1(1), Delhi ('Ld. AO') is contrary to the provisions of the Act and is therefore void-ab-initio. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the final assessment Ld. AO is without jurisdiction as the same was ought to be passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre and therefore, the order is void-ab-initio. Transfer Pricing (TP) Grounds 2. TP adjustment with respect to receipt of IntraGroup Services On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. TPO') [in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP')], erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by INR 21,61,52,391 holding that the international transaction pertaining to receipt of intra-group services do not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), and in doing so have grossly erred in: 2.1. rejecting the combined transaction approach of benchmarking adopted by the Appellant in its TP documentation (i.e., aggrega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applying the range concept as prescribed under Rule 10CA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Corporate Tax Grounds 4. Disallowance of Support Service Expenditure 4.1. On the facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ DRP erred in disallowing the legitimate business expenditure being in the nature of support service expenses of INR 9,31,97,824 paid to AT&T Communication Services India Private Limited ('ACSI'). 4.2. On the facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ DRP erred in not taking cognizance of the submissions made by Appellant and the documentary and circumstantial evidence/ proof produced by the Appellant, which duly substantiate that support services were rendered by ACSI to the Appellant company. 4.3. On the facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ DRP erred in ignoring that the aforesaid disallowance on account of support service expenditure has been deleted by the Hon'ble ITAT for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 4.4. On the facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO failed to grant sufficient opportunity to the Appellant to present its content....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provide by the Appellant which states that said such expenses have not been capitalized for Income tax purpose. 7.3. On the facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO / DRP has erred in ignoring the fact that whether the money paid is a revenue expenditure or capital expenditure depends not so much upon the facts as to whether the amount paid is large or small or whether it has been paid in lump sum or by installments, as it does upon the purpose for which the payment has been made and expenditure has been incurred. 7.4. On the facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO / DRP has erred in ignoring the fact for the purposes of the Act, the Appellant has not capitalized the assets (motor vehicles), thereby not claiming depreciation thereupon and hence, the expenses related to road tax and value added tax shall be allowed to the Appellant as the same are revenue in nature. 7.6. On the facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in holding that the Appellant has not claimed such expenses as deduction in its return of income. By holding so, the Ld. AO has erred in not following the judicial precedents a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not form binding precedent. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing vehement rival submissions. We find merit in the Revenue's stand in principle as once the instant issue is to be remanded back going by A.Y. 2009-10's findings, the same could not be allowed for computation purposes at this stage being a pre-mature exercise. We thus accept the assessee's instant second ground herein for statistical purposes only at this stage; to be adjudicated afresh by the learned TPO, as per our directions in the first and foremost assessment year 200910. Needless to say, he shall indeed consider all the intervening developments as well as assessee's evidence as per law. Ordered accordingly. 9. We next advert to the assessee's second substantive ground raising "royalty" adjustment issue in transfer pricing proceedings. We make it clear first of all that the assessee is indeed very fair during the course of hearing in not challenging the impugned adjustment in principle. Learned counsel's sole plea is that the lower authorities herein have not computed the impugned adjustment going by Rules 10CA(7) proviso r.w.s. sub-rule (8) thereof prescribing such a transfer pric....