TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 704
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the same does not required to be benchmarked. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the transaction of the providing corporate guarantee have resulted in increases the asset base and tax base in India and hence no adjustment warranted which is contrary to the provisions of section 92B and Rule 10B & 10C of Income Tax Rules. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the adjustment/addition of Rs. 9,38,03,720/-on account of interest on convertible loans. 5) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the transaction of interest on convertible loans have resulted in increases the asset base and tax base in India and hence no adjustment warranted which is contrary to the provisions of section 92B and Rule 10B & 10C of Income Tax Rules. 6) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 7,23,13,636/ made u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act, without examining the taxability of payments made to non-residents under section 195 and the applicable DTAA provisions. 7) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in treating the product registration expenditure as revenue in nature, di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions. 16) The Revenue craves leave to add/alter/armed and/on substitute any or all of the grounds of appeal." 3. The present appeal arises out of the assessment order dated 21.05.2015 by DCIT-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and pursuant impugned order passed by ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard the parties and perused the records. 5. Ld. CIT-DR has relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the AO") during his argument; on the other hand, Ld. AR appearing for the Assessee submits that the majority of the grounds urged in the present appeal preferred by the Revenue have already been decided against the department in the case of the Assessee itself for earlier Assessment Years. He has submitted the ground-wise status of the issues involved as under: Ground No. Department's Ground of Appeal in Brief Assessee's Submission in Brief 1., 2. & 3. Deleting the adjustment/addition of Rs. 18,95,02,413 on account of guarantee fee charges. Decided against the Revenue by this Tribunal in Assessee's own case for AYs. 2009-10 & 2010-11 and AYs. 2012-13 to 2015-16 4. & 5. Deletin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eaves us with Ground Nos. 11, 13, and 14, to be adjudicated. Ground No. 11:- 6. In Ground No. 11, the issue involved is additional disallowance of Rs. 3,98,65,292/- u/s 14A of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue as follows: "10.5 I have carefully perused the facts of the case, grounds of appeal, impugned AO/TPO order, submission uploaded by the appellant and judicial decision relied upon by the appellant. Having considered the facts of the case and the aforesaid submissions of the appellant, I find that the contention of the appellant is correct and justified, keeping in view the provisions of section 14A, which can be invoked only in respect of investments which yield income which is exempt from income-tax. The contention of the appellant is that while computing the disallowance u/s. 14A read with rule 8D, AO has wrongly taken the value of foreign investments made with Zydus International Pvt. Ltd. And Onconova Therapeutics USA as income arises from investments made with these companies being dividend received from the foreign companies are taxable. The computations submitted on record clearly show that the AO erred in computing disallowance under Rule 8D eve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....flected in its books of accounts and under the circumstances there is no case for invoking the provision of unexplained credit. HE TAX DEPAR 12.11 In view of the above factual matrix of the case, AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,00,83,884/-treating the receipt of Royalty in Japanese Yen as unaccounted income of the appellant. Hence, Ground No.9 raised by the appellant is allowed." 7.1 Ld. CIT(A), after considering submissions of the Assessee as well as objections raised by the AO as per the facts on record, came to the conclusion that all its receipts in JPY from its subsidiary Zydus Pharma Japan have been duly accounted and offered to tax in its return of income. On the other hand, the AO in its remand report was not able to support or justify the source or basis for treating the amount of Rs. 1,00,83,884/- (JPY 21,08,091/-) as undisclosed income despite the opportunity provided to him by way of remand. Revenue could not dispute this finding of fact recorded by ld. CIT(A). 7.2. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and hence, the Ground No. 13 raised by the Revenue is dism....