Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
M/S Maxim India Integrated Circuit ... vs Ito, Ward-12(1), Bangalore on 1 November, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCHES " C " BENCH: BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.P. No.63/Bang/2019
(In IT(TP)A No.1305/Bang/2011)
(Assessment Year: 2007-08)
M/s. Maxim India Integrated Vs. Income Tax Officer,
Circuit Design Pvt. Ltd., Ward 12(1),
No.132/133, West Wing, Bengaluru.
2nd Floor, Domlur Post,
Off Old Airport Road,
Bengaluru - 560 037
PAN AACCM 9437E
(Petitioner) (Respondent)
Petitioner By: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.A.
Respondent By: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Date of Hearing : 25.10.2019
Date of Pronouncement : 01.10.2019
ORDER
PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM :
The assessee has filed Misc. Petition under Rule 24A of the ITAT Rules in Tribunal order IT(TP)A No.1305/Bang/2011 Order dt.29.03.2019.
2. At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative made submissions on the Misc. Petition and prayed for the 2 M P No.63/Bang/2019 directions of the Tribunal on exclusion of comparables i.e. Kals Information Systems Limited and Persistent Systems Limited and has not pressed the comparable Quintegra Solutions Ltd. and made submissions on the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee on 29.08.2018. We deal first on the issue in respect of exclusion of two comparable companies i.e. KALS Information Systems Ltd. referred at page 28 of the Tribunal order and Persistent Systems Ltd. page 29 of the Tribunal order. The learned Authorised Representative arguments are that there is no specific directions given on these comparables to Assessing Officer for exclusion whereas the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the Tribunal.
3. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We found that submissions of the learned Authorised Representative are duly supported with petitions on KALS Information System Ltd. which was excluded referred at page 27 para 13 of the order. Accordingly, we direct that the following sentence shall be inserted at the end of paragraph 13 of the order. 3 M P No.63/Bang/2019
"Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer/TPO for exclusion of Kals Information Systems Ltd. from the final list of comparables selected for determination of ALP."
4. Similarly, Persistent Systems Limited was considred for exclusion by the Tribunal at page 29 para 14 of the order. Accordingly we direct that the following sentence shall be inserted at the end of paragraph 14.
"Accordingly, we direct the TPO for exclusion of Persistent Systems Limited from the final list of comparables selected for determination of ALP."
5. On the second disputed issue raised in the Misc. Petition that the assessee has raised additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee on 28.09.2018 which is as under :
" 1.1 The lower authorities have erred in not granting deduction under Section 10A on disallowance of Rs.53,77,052 being interest paid on ECB loan and depreciation of Rs.43,500 on computers due exchange gain adjustment. The appellant prays accordingly."
6. We find the additional ground of appeal was not adjudicated by the Tribunal and accordingly, we recall the impugned order of the Tribunal for the limited purposes adjudicating the additional grounds. Accordingly we direct the Registry to post the appeal for 4 M P No.63/Bang/2019 hearing for adjudicating additional ground of appeal on 21.11. 2019 and inform the parties. We order accordingly.
7. In the result, the Misc. Petition filed by assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 1st Nov., 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(B.R.BASKARAN) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 01.11.2019.
*Reddy GP
Copy to -
i)The Appellant ii)The Respondent iii)CIT (Appeals)
iv) Pr. CIT v)DR, ITAT, Bangalore vi)Guard File
By order
Assistant Registrar
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
Bangalore