Boscj Limited, Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1581/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0676 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM IT(TP)A No.1581/Bang/2014 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 M/s.Bosch Limited Hoisur Road, Adugodi Bangalore - 560 030 PAN : AAACM9840P v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU) Bangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate & Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 19.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 28.08.2014. The relevant assessment year is 2009-2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of diesel fuel injection equipments and parts therefore, auto electrical etc. For the assessment year 2009-2010, the return of income was filed on 29.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs.619,75,17,688. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act vide order dated 31.05.2013 by determining the total income at Rs.653,85,57,204. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the IT(TP)A No.1581/Bang/2014 M/s.Bosch Limited 2 order of the CIT(A), on issues decided against the assesee, an appeal has been filed before the Tribunal. The grounds raised by the assessee read as follows:- “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Large Tax payers Unit, Bangalore (for short CIT(A) LTU) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in not allowing a deduction for the provision made towards interest payable to Central excise dept amounting to Rs.40,312 although the appellant has followed mercantile system of accounting. 2. That the learned CIT(A) LTU erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the interest expenditure payable to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act, 2006) amounting to Rs. 13,30,621. 3. That the learned CIT(A) LTU erred in upholding the action of Assessing Officer in taxing the receipt towards first instalment in respect of Technical know-how from M/s E P Polymers (M) SDW, BHD Malaysia under the head business income instead of long-term Capital gains, despite agreeing with appellant's contention that "right to use" falls within the ambit of "Capital asset". 4. That the learned CIT(A) LTU erred in upholding the action of Assessing Officer in allowing weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) on the net expenditure of Rs. 30,33,74,421 as against gross expenditure of Rs. 94,50,68,193. 5. That the learned CIT(A) LTU erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing u/s. 14A Rs.52,12,206 as against Rs.2,01,142 disallowed by the appellant. 6. That the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.34,81,31,774. 7. That the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the TPO's conclusion that the arm's length price of technical fee paid is to be treated as "NIL" 8. That the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding TPO's action of applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUR) method as the most appropriate method and in treating the transactions relating to technical charges as a class of transaction of its own and further erred on facts in para 13.2 by holding that 'The manufacturing activities of the appellant, from the time