Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU & BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARYSHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY
This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-42, New Delhi dated 3rd December, 2019.
With respect to the captioned proceeding, the assessee has sought permission to withdraw the following two Grounds of Appeal raised in the Memorandum of Appeal following the resolution of the dispute under MAP with UK, and, in support, a communication of CBDT
2 ITA-718/Del/2020 (Foreign Tax & Tax Research-I Division) dated 17th July, 2020 has been placed on record :-
“2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in law in traveling beyond the subject matter of appeal while directing the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/Assessing Officer (AO) to consider AMP intensity as a function for determining arm’s length price of manufacturing and distribution segment without appreciating that the subject matter of appeal was restricted to whether AMP is an international transaction. Hence, the direction to the Ld. TPO to examine and apply AMP intensity is beyond the scope of powers of CIT(A) under Section 251(1) of the Act.
4. That the Ld.CIT(A) grossly erred in law in directing the Ld.TPO/AO to carry out an AMP intensity adjustment, after having concluded that there was no international transaction vis-a-vis the manufacturing segment;
4.1 That the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the direction to carry out AMP intensity adjustment, given by the jurisdictional High Court in their recent decisions, was on basis of the admitted position of fact in said cases regarding the existence of international transaction and hence, not applicable to the instant case;
4.2 That the Ld.CIT(A), in the garb of AMP Intensity Adjustment, has erred in implying/concluding that the AMP functions carried out by the Appellant may also provide profits in the market which may be different from the distribution/manufacturing profits;
4.3 That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in including the selling and distribution expenses while computing the AMP spend of the Appellant in complete disregard of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt.Ltd. vs. CIT ((2005) 374 ITR 118).”
Considering the plea of the assessee, which is not objected by the learned Senior DR, the aforesaid two Grounds of Appeal are permitted to be withdrawn.
3 ITA-718/Del/2020
This Interim Order is being issued in deference to the prayer of the assessee and the remaining Grounds of the captioned appeal subsist and shall come up for hearing before the regular Bench in due course.
Above decision was announced in the presence of both the parties on conclusion of Virtual Hearing on 21st August, 2020.