TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2308
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c 80G of Rs. 33,12,500/-, the total income returned was Rs.1,59,78,004/-. The book profit u/s 115JB returned by the assessee was Rs. 38,46,76,966/-. The assessee company, an Indian company engaged in the business of E publishing with Indian promoters, namely Newgen Digital Works Private Limited, was incorporated on 10-3-2003 as E- Pagemaker Private Limited. The name was changed to the current name, Newgen Digital Works Private Limited, after the amalgamation of Newgen Knowledge Works Private Limited with E-PageMaker Private Limited, which took effect from 1-4-2015. As part of the E-publishing business, the company provides business process outsourcing services (largely for publishing houses) in the nature of typesetting, editing, designing and formatting, proofreading, and publishing books, magazines, articles, and other written materials in electronic format to make content accessible on computers, tablets, smartphones, e-readers, etc. The company's main customers are reported to be reputed publishing houses such as Oxford University Press (OUP), Wolters Kluwer (WK), Cambridge University Press, Thomson Reuters, Bloomsbury, Aspen Publishers, Kluwer Law International, Amazon, et....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me comprised audited financial statements of subsidiaries, bank statements, CA certificates etc. Upon consideration, the same were admitted for the purposes of this adjudication. 4.0 The first issue raised by the assessee through its grounds of appeal is regarding the downward adjustments of Rs. 15,13,05,424/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has following overseas AEs S No Name of the AE Name of the country where the AE is located % shareholding of the assessee company in the AE 1 Newgen North America USA 100% Inc. 2 Newgen Knowledge Works UK Ltd. UK 100% 2a Newgen Publishing Services Ltd. UK 100% subsidiary of No.2 2b Newgen Digital Works Ltd. UK 100% subsidiary of No.2 2c Out of House Publishing UK 80% subsidiary of No.2 3 Global Publishing Solutions Ltd. UK 79% 4 Spectra Global Solutions Ltd. UK 84% 5 Konvertus BV Netherlands 80% 6 Newgen Knowledge Works Malaysia, SDN BHD Malaysia 100% The Ld. Counsel submitted that submitted that its overseas AEs are critical to its business and that in a way....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ople who are engaged in production-related activities. It was submitted that in many cases, the foreign customers prefer to enter into contracts only with local entities. In such cases, the AEs procure the business in their names. However, since they lack production-related capabilities, they outsource, back to India all the production related work. Their activities are confined to sales support and project management/coordination only. The Ld. Counsel emphatically submitted that the AEs procure orders only for the assessee company and similarly render project management/coordination services only to the assessee company. The AEs do not work for anybody other than the assessee company. Therefore, they are captive service providers to the assessee company. 6.0 The Ld. Counsel argued that it had before the Ld. TPO and the Ld. DRP presented sufficient evidences to indicate that services were indeed rendered by the overseas AEs. Through a voluminous paper book, the Ld.AR drew our attention to contemporaneous email communication between assessee and its AEs, the details of export business done by the assessee, inter-company agreements, sample invoices raised by the AEs on the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the order of lower authorities. It was argued that it was a case of shifting of profits and that therefore disturbance made by the Ld. TPO is order. 8.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The Ld. TPO and the Ld.DRP have made the impugned disturbance on the premise that the services were not rendered by the AEs and therefore there cannot be any case of allowance of the accompanying expenditure. We have noted that the assessee is engaged in the business of E-Publishing and that it has earned its entire turnover, including export turnover, of about Rs.172.56 Crores from the said activity. Against the turnover of about Rs.172.56 Crores, the assessee has claimed the expenditure of Rs. 15,13,05,424/- which comes to less than 10% of its total turnover. We have also noted that all the activities claimed to have been performed by the AEs are integral to the business of E-Publishing. It is trite law that expenditure is an integral part of any business. By and large, every income earned by a business entity is dependent upon some expenditure. Therefore to conclude that the assessee earned a hefty turnover of about Rs. 172 Crores without incurring....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest Kento Cylinders Ltd. [2015] 58 taxmann.com 254 (Bombay) and Nimbus Communication [2014] 42 taxmann.com 139 (Mumbai). It was further urged that since the assessee company had issued the guarantee only on 2-2-2021, the guarantee fee adjustment be calculated pro-rata only for 2 months for this FY 2020-21 (AY 2021-22) -. It was stated that the same works out to Rs. 4,04,250, which is 0.50 % of USD 66,00,000 for 2 months @ exchange rate of Rs. 73.50/-. 10.0 Per contra, the Ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of lower authorities. The issue was reported to be subjudice, presently 11.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that on the issue of guarantee fees Hon'ble Bombay Tribunal in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders Limited as at 34 Taxmann.com 19 have held that guarantee fee of 0.5% as reasonable for similar cases. Thus, Hon'ble Coordinate Bench have observed as under :- " ..... We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the CIT(A) as well as the TPO. The only issue before us is the upward adjustment of arms length price in relati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under which terms and conditions and circumstances, the banks have been charging guarantee commission at the rate of 3%. The charging of a guarantee commission depends upon transaction to transaction and mutual understanding between the parties. There may be a case where the bank may not charge any guarantee commission, depending upon its evaluation of relationship with a particular client. Even otherwise also the TPO himself has noted that guarantee commission ranges between 0.15% to 3% in case of HSBC. The universal application of rate of 3% for guarantee commission cannot be upheld in every case as it is largely dependent upon the terms and conditions, on which loan has been given, risk undertaken, relationship between the bank and the client, economic and business interest are some of the major factors which has to be taken into consideration. In the present case, when the assessee has specifically stated that neither it has incurred any cost for providing the guarantee to the bank for loan taken by its subsidiary nor has undertaken any kind of risk, as it was the subsidiary company which has hypothecated its assets against the loan, the TPO has not brought anything on the reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....commission from the AE is quite near to 0.6%, where the assessee has paid independently to the ICICI Bank and charging of guarantee commission at the rate of 0.5% from its AE can be said to be at arms length. The difference of 0.1% can be ignored as the rate of interest on which ICICI Bank, Bahrain Branch has given loan to AE (i.e. subsidiary company) is at 5.5%, whereas the assessee is paying interest rate of more than 10% on its loan taken with ICICI Bank in India. Thus, such a minor difference can be on account of differential rate of interest. Thus, on these facts, we do not find any reason to uphold any kind of upward adjustment in ALP in relation to charging of guarantee commission. Hence, the addition of Rs.28,50,353/- on account of TP adjustment on guarantee commission is hereby deleted and the order of the CIT(A) is set aside. Accordingly, ground No.2 is treated to be allowed .... " 12.0 We have further noted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court have affirming the ruling of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in its decision at 58 taxmann.com 254 held as under :- " ....... We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of TNMM would take care of the same. Lastly, the assessee advanced loans to its AEs and charged interest at LIBOR and therefore, the same should be applied to benchmark the transactions. 3.3 However, Ld. DRP chose to confirm the approach of Ld. TPO. The only relief granted was on account of applicable rate and Ld. TPO was directed to benchmark the same on the basis of interest rates on short term fixed deposits prevailing at relevant point of time. The said directions reduced the impugned adjustment to Rs.25.11 Lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3.4 From the fact, it emerges that the assessee has not charged any interest on outstanding receivables from AEs and non-AEs. Further, the loans advanced to AEs have been benchmarked separately. It also emerges that the assessee is a zero-debt entity and do not incur significant interest expenditure. Therefore, to allege that the assessee accommodated its AEs in the guise of receivables would not be a correct proposition. Therefore, this addition is not sustainable. We order so. The corresponding grounds raised by the assessee stand allowed ... ". 5.3 Further, on the impugned issue the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue to a variety of factors which will have to be investigated on case to case basis and the impact of this would have on the working capital of the assessee will have to be studied and enquired properly by the AO for analyzing the statistics over a period of time to find out the pattern which would indicate that viz-a-viz the receivables for the supplies made to its AE, the arrangement reflects an international transaction intended to benefit the AE in some way. Further, the Hon'ble High Court held that when the assessee having already factored in the impact of receivables on the working capital and thereby on its profitability viz-a-vis with that of its comparables, any further adjustment, only on the basis of outstanding receivables would have distorted the picture. Hence, it was held that it is not permissible. In this instant case before us also, the TPO has not carried out basic exercise or any analysis on the facts of the case or the factors mentioned by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The TPO has not carried out any exercise of statistics and the pattern which would indicate that the receivables from supplies will benefit the AEs in some way. 12. Most importan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the DRP) had not taken note of the Delhi High Court concerning AY 2010-11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment concerning AY 2010-11 was rendered on 21.07.2017 i.e., after order of ITAT for AY 2012-13. 14. For the subsequent assessment year namely AY 2013-14, (post the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., concerning AY 2010-11) the Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.7234/Del/2017 (order dated 18.12.2020) had discussed the conflicted saga of Bechtel cases concerning Assessment Year 201011 and 2012-13 and held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., for the assessment year 2010-11 (supra) had settled the law and there cannot be any interest imputed on outstanding receivables when assessee in the said case was a debt free company. The relevant facts, contentions raised by both the sides and the finding of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., for assessment year 2013-14 (supra), reads as follows :- 11. The ground No. 5 of the appeal relates to transfer pricing adjustment for interest on receivables. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated the historical background of the issue in dispute and submitted that special leave petition filed by the Revenue against the order of the Hon'ble High Court for assessment year 2010-11 has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21/07/2017, which is after the order of the Tribunal for AY 2012-13 dated 16/05/2017 and therefore decision of the Tribunal in assessment year 201213 need not be followed. 11.3 The Learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal in assessment year 2012-13 noted the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in assessment year 2010-11 and after taking into consideration the Explanation inserted by way of the Finance Act, 2012 to section 92B with retrospective effect from 01/04/2002, held that any delay in realization of debt arising during the course of the business is liable to be visited with TP adjustment on account of interest income short charged or uncharged. In view of the learned DR, the Learned DRP is justified in following the order of the Tribunal in assessment year 2012-13. 11.4 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and relevant material on record including the decisions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt year 2012-13 is reproduced as under: "17. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the record of the case. The assessee's grievance is two-fold. Firstly, when working capital adjustment has been made, then, no separate adjustment is required to be made in respect of accounts receivables because the same gets subsumed in the working capital adjustment. The second plea of the assessee is that since its funds are entirely debt free, therefore, no adjustment is warranted in regard to late realisation of proceedings from receivables. The assessee's reliance as noted earlier, is on the decisions in its own cases for assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12. The issue has been elaborately considered in the case of Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and, again, in the case of Mckinsey Knowledge Centre Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In the case of Techbooks India International Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra), taking note of the Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 to Section 92B, it was observed that there remained no doubt that apart from any short-term or long-term borrowing, etc., or even advance payments or deferred payments, 'any other debt ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m or short-term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other debt arising during the course of business;" 11.7 But before us the Learned Counsel of the assessee has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 21/07/2017, which is after the decision of the Tribunal in assessment year 2012-13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "Delay condoned. We are in agreement with the High Court that as far as Question-B concerning adjustment for interest on receivables is concerned the Tribunal has returned a finding of fact. Consequently, no substantial question of law therefore, rises, on the facts of this case. The special leave petition is dismissed." 11.8 In view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is subsequent to the order of the Tribunal in assessment year 2012-13, we direct the Ld. AO/TPO to delete the transfer pricing adjustment on account of the interest receivables. The ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. 15. From the above order of the Delhi Bench of the Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowed .... " 13.0 Thus we have noted that guarantee fee of 0.5% has been taken as reasonable amount. We have also noted that a coordinate Bench of this tribunal in the case of M/s.VA Tech Wabag Pvt. Ltd vide ITA No. 147/Chny/2018, for Assessment Years: 2009-10 through order dated 19.02.2025 have held as under: " ..... We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted the decision of Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in IT(TP)A No.7,8,9 & 326/Chny/2021 dated 16.10.2024 in assessee's own case. Thus, para 18 to 20 of the impugned order reads as under :- " ..... 18.0 The next issue that has been raised by the revenue for AY-2013-14 is in respect of action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the Ld. AO in respect of transfer pricing adjustments u/s 92CA(3). From the perusal of Ld. AO's order we find that the Ld. TPO had recommended an adjustment of 1% of the value of services provided, in this case being value of the corporate guaranty to its overseas AEs. As per the factual matrix the assessee had acquired shares of VA Tech Wabag GmbH Austria from siemens and the purchase consideratio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....saction. The Ld. counsel for the assessee only requested that the upward adjustment of ALP can be done at 0.5%. 10. After hearing both the parties and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we concur with the TPO's order that this is an international transaction, but upward adjustment is now covered in favour of the assessee partly by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd, supra, wherein it is directed that the adjustment should be made @0.5%. Hence, we direct the A.O accordingly. 11. Coming to ITA No.807/CHNY/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12 of assessee's appeal, the issue is regarding corporate guarantee charged by AO and affirmed by DRP at the rate of 1.5%. Since we have adjudicated this issue while dealing with Revenue's Appeal in ITA No.953/CHNY/2015 for assessment year 2010-11 and the facts are identical, taking a consistent view, we direct the AO to adopt the rate @ 0.5%. This issue of the assessee's appeal is partly-allowed ... " 20.0 In respectful compliance to the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this tribunal supra as also in consideration of the principles....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that assuming that the interest on over due receivables is treated as an international transaction then the credit period terms with non-AEs would constitute an internal comparable transaction, hence, the addition was unwarranted. In support reliance was placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indo-American Jewellery 44 taxmann.com holding that " ..... On appeal, the CIT(A) held that the total outstanding amount was Rs.8.73 Crores and out of which the amount outstanding from the Associated Enterprises was to the extent of Rs.5.11 Crores and the balance amount of Rs 3.62 Crores was outstanding from non Associated Enterprises. Relying on the Board Circular no. 12 of 2001, the CIT(A) further held that in the present case, the profit of one Associated Enterprise is negligible and the other Associated Enterprise has incurred losses and therefore it cannot be said that the assessee had transfered any profit to the Associated Enterprises outside India by not charging interest on the outstanding payment which has been realised after the due date and accordingly deleted the interest charged on late realisation of the export proceeds. 5. On appeal f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e on records. As far as the controversy as to whether the impugned transaction of outstanding receivables are 'international' transactions or not, we find force in the arguments of the learned DR that they are indeed international transactions. We have noted that an amendment u/s.92B has been made in the Act vide Finance Act, 2012 postulating that international transaction shall include "deferred payment or receivable or any other debt arising during the course of business". It is an undisputed fact of the present case that the issue in question are receivables akin to sundry debts which had arisen to the assessee during the course of its regular business with its AEs. We have also noted that the impugned amendment has been upheld by various courts in their decisions, some of which have been relied upon by the learned DRP. We have also noted that in the case of Kusum Healthcare Private Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that in order to hold receivable as international transactions, the learned TPO would be required to establish through his enquiries that an indirect benefit was intended to be given back the assessee to its AEs by delaying the receipt of rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. TPO held that excessive outstanding receivables have to comply with Transfer Pricing (TP) provisions. The outstanding beyond comparable period was proposed to be treated as separate transaction of interest free advances as per Sec. 92B(1). The maximum credit period was accepted to be 90 days and outstanding receivables beyond that time period were benchmarked at prime lending rate of 14.4%. The same resulted in to an adjustment of Rs.57.14 Lacs. 3.2 Before DRP, the assessee submitted that it did not charge any interest from AE as well as non-AEs. No finance cost was incurred. The delayed realization was beyond the control of the assessee and not to bestow any benefit on the AE. It was also submitted that the assessee was a zero debt company and it did not have any borrowings from external sources and therefore, it was not required to pay any interest. Further, Ld. TPO having chosen TNMM method erred in making further adjustment for interest on overdue receivable since the application of TNMM would take care of the same. Lastly, the assessee advanced loans to its AEs and charged interest at LIBOR and therefore, the same should be applied to benchmark the transactions. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 30 days given by the TPO is adhoc, arbitrary and completely ignore the credit period as per inter-company agreement of 180 days, the credit period that is given to the comparable companies and various judicial pronouncements allowing credit period of 90 to 120 days. 10. The ld. DR supported the orders of the TPO and the DRP. 11. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., (supra) had categorically held that inclusion in the Explanation to Section 92B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2012 in regard to expression 'receivables' does not mean that de hors the context every item of 'receivables' appearing in the accounts of an entity, which may have dealings with foreign AEs would automatically be characterized as an international transaction. The Hon'ble High Court held that there may be delay in collection of monies for supplies made, even beyond the agreed period, due to a variety of factors which will have to be investigated on case to case basis and the impact of this would have on the working capital of the assessee will have to be studi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-13). This order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., for AY 2012-13, had distinguished the Delhi Bench order in the same assessee's case concerning assessment year 2010-11. The Delhi Bench order in the case of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., for assessment year 2010-11 in ITA No.1478/Del/2015 (order dated 21.12.2015) had deleted the interest on delayed receivables citing that assessee was a debt free company and no interest was paid even on delayed payables. The above order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2010-11 concerning Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., was confirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITA No.379/2016 (judgment dated 21.07.2016). The Delhi High Court judgment was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CC No. 4956/2017 (judgment dated 21.07.2017). The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's SLP and upheld the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment. The Tribunal in the case of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., concerning assessment year 2012-13 (relied on by the DRP) had not taken note of the Delhi High Court concerning AY 2010-11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment concerning AY 2010-11 was rendered on 21.07.2017 i.e., after ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'Ameriprise India P Ltd.', 2015-TII-347-ITAT-Del-TP held that when the export proceeds are realized within the year, but beyond the stipulated period of the agreement, then same will not come within the working capital adjustment and rejected the contention of the assessee that interest on delayed payment of receivable get subsumed in the working capital adjustment allowed to the assessee. The Tribunal in AY 2012-13 held that interest on delayed realization of receivables is a separate international transaction and therefore require benchmarking. The Tribunal applying interest rate of six months LIBOR +400 basis point on receivables, upheld the transfer pricing adjustment of interest on receivables accordingly. In view of the finding of the Tribunal in assessment year 2012-13, the Learned DRP in the year under consideration directed the Learned TPO to compute the adjustment using the interest rate of six month of LIBOR +400 basis point. 11.2 Before us, the Learned Counsel of the assessee has repeated the historical background of the issue in dispute and submitted that special leave petition filed by the Revenue against the order of the Hon'ble High Court for as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evenue, against the above order of the Tribunal, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (ITA No. 379/2016) in order dated 21/07/2016 dismissed the appeal observing as under: "4. As far as question (B) concerning the adjustment for interest no receivables, the Court finds that the ITAT has returned a detailed finding of fact that the Assessee is a debt free company and the question of receiving any interest on receivables did not arise. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises for consideration as far as this issue is concerned." 11.6 The assessee brought the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in assessment year 2010-11, before the Tribunal in assessment year 2012-13 by way of raising ground No. 1.5 of the appeal, however, the Tribunal after considering the amendment brought into Act by way of Finance Act, 2012 and other decisions held that interest on delayed realization of receivable is a separate international transaction, which requires separate benchmarking. The finding of the Tribunal in assessment year 2012-13 is reproduced as under: "17. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the record of the case. The assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th retrospective effect from 1.4.2002, which has been duly taken into account by the Tribunal in its later order in Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 21. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is noticed as highlighted above, that the assessee argued before the TPO that interest on receivables is not an international transaction. At this stage, it would be apposite to note that the Finance Act, 2012 has inserted Explanation to section 92B with retrospective effect from 1.4.2002. Clause (i) of this Explanation, which is otherwise also for removal of doubts, gives meaning to the expression 'international transaction' in an inclusive manner. Sub-clause (c) of clause (i) of this Explanation, which is relevant for our purpose, provides as under :- Explanation .-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that -- (i) the expression "international transaction" shall include -- (a) (b) (c) capital financing, including any type of long-term or short-term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red accordingly .... " 5.4 In the cases of Tecnimont Pvt Ltd (ITA 56/Bom/2016) Hon'ble Bombay High Court and this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Verizon Data Services Pvt Ltd (ITA 3411/Chny/2016) and Plintron Global Technologies Solutions have held that receivables from overseas entities, have to be only charged to interest as per LIBOR rate. Consequently, the appellant assessee has assailed the additional adjustments of 3.5% to the LIBOR rate made by the Ld. AO. 6.0 We are therefore of the considered view that considering the facts the appellant assessee, as well as in respectful compliance to the decisions of Hon'ble High Courts and Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal including this tribunal, there is no merit in the action of the Revenue in making the impugned addition by way of adjustment proposed by the Ld. TPO. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the lower authorities and direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition of Rs. 50,78,859/-. Therefore, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed .... " 19.0 We have also noted with deference the order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indo-American Jewellery Limited. In r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2H XML Conversion- Vendor Cost 38,544 April 15,2021 34,419 Fully paid 38,544 April 26,2021 4,125 3 Masood Naseer Consulting Josephine Apartments, Chimbai Road, Bandra, Trainer Fees 1,76,906 April 10,2021 1,45,687 Fully paid 1,76,906 April 16.2021 41,625 4 Karish Infotech Vendor cost- Epub 13,920 13,920 Provision reversed on 31st march 13,920 5 Aboli Champhekar Aditya Garden City, Japonica - A, Flat No 19, Warje, Pune - 411058 Trainer Fees 64,750 April 16.2021 64,750 Fully paid 64,750 Total 15,46,247 15,56,653 15,10,866 The Ld. Counsel also stated that the Ld. AO disallowed the amounts payable to the above sundry creditors as on 31-3-2021 of Rs 15,10,866 whereas the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned controversy we have noted the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Cash Edge India Pvt Ltd vide ITA No.64/Del/2015 passed while considering the judicial ratio laid down in Apollo Tyres 255 ITR 273(SC) and Malayalam Manorama 300 ITR 251(SC). Thus, the in the case of Cash Edge India supra it was held that " ............... 33. The final issue for consideration is challenge raised by the assessee to the action of the AO in adding back transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 1,18,93,468/- to income assessed under Section 115JB (MAT). 34. In this regard, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO has added the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,18,93,468/- to the book profits of the Assessee under Section 115JB of the Act without appreciating that book profits of the company cannot be adjusted except as provided in Explanation 1 Section 115JB(2) of the Act and that transfer pricing adjustment is not one of the adjustments contemplated under that Explanation. He placed reliance upon the following decisions to contend that except for adjustments provided in Explanation 1 Section 115JB(2) of the Act, no other adjustment can be made to book ....