Case Law Details
Danisco India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
In the present set of facts where the assessee was availing specialized services which were provided by the AEs from common pool and the evidences in this regard have been filed by the assessee and where the services were charged on cost to cost basis, there is no merit in the order of the Assessing Officer in questioning the availment of services and the benefit derived by the assessee. It may be pointed out that the Assessing Officer in the alternate held that there was duplication of services. The CIT(A) in the final analysis held it to be shareholder activity. All the above said observations of the authorities below, establish the availment of services. We have also perused the data of evidences filed by the assesse to establish its case of availment of services; under law the benefit, if any, arises to the assessee or not cannot be questioned. Hence, the payment made by the assessee being cost to cost reimbursement of the services availed from common pool is duly allowable as a business expenditure in the hands of the assessee. The TPO has exceeded his jurisdiction in holding the value of the said international transaction at NIL. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. (supra) had held that benchmarking of cost to cost reimbursement of expenses was not within the jurisdiction of the TPO while computing the arm’s length price of the international transaction u/s 92CA of the Act. In such facts, we direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to allow the claim of the assessee in entirety.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
The present appeal filed by assessee is against order of CIT(A)-44, New Delhi dated 02.12.20 15 relating to assessment year 2009-10 against the order passed under section 144C(4)/ 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
2. The assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
