Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1.6 Whether on the facts and circumstances the case and in law, the CIT(A) is correct in relying on the case of Parle Biscuits (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT [2014] 46 taxmann.com 11 (Mum) without realizing the distinguishing facts like in the Parle case the issue is de/ay occurred in issuance of share certificates, whereas the issue in the instant case non- allotment of shares itself a consequence the a for quite a long time and as the AE in the c mount advanced by the assessee to move mount form' of share application y pending without allotment of shares beyond a reasonable time is essentially loan in `substance'?

This decision has subsequently been followed by Mumbai Tribunal in Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. V/s DCIT (ITA No.9010/Mum/2010 dated 11/04/2014) and also in Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. V/s DCIT (ITA No.7033/Mum/2012 25/03/2015) wherein similar ratio has been laid down.
3.5.9 Keeping in the view the facts and circumstances, we delete the impugned TP adjustment as proposed by Ld. TPO."

We have perused the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, and find, that the fact situation pertaining to the issue under consideration viz. transfer pricing adjustment as regards charging of notional interest on the share application money that was given by the assessee to its wholly owned subsidiary company viz. Saudi Ensas Company for Engineering Services WLL, UAE, for which allotment of shares was pending on 31.03.2012, remains the same as was there before the Tribunal in the assesse‟s own case for A.Y 2009-10 and A.Y 2010-11 in ITA No. 2822/Mum/2017 and ITA No. 2823.Mum/2017. Finding ourselves to be in agreement with the aforesaid view of the Tribunal, we respectfully follow the same. Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observations we uphold the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,81,20,323/- that was made by the A.O/TPO towards charging of notional interest on share application money pending allotment of shares with its wholly owned subsidiary company viz. Saudi Ensas Company for Engineering Services WLL, UAE. The Grounds of appeal Nos. 1.1 to 1.7 are dismissed.