Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 790 - AT - Income TaxTransfer pricing adjustments - Adjustment towards interest on advances provided to Xiamen Mchem Pharma (Group) Ltd., and Xiamen Mchem Laboratories Ltd., (Associated Enterprises) - DRP direction TPO adopting interest rate of ‘Libor + 2%’ as against interest rate of ‘Libor + 1%’ charged by the tax payer - Held that:- Since the DRP has accepted +1% on guarantee commission, we do not see any reason to vary as far as the interest charged, which is also + 1% over and above the LIBOR. It should be accepted that LIBOR rate is a valid CUP available externally. Therefore, LIBOR + 1% charged by the assessee can be considered as at arms length, in the absence of any other comparables where LIBOR + 2% is charged. We are of the opinion that assessee charge at LIBOR + 1% interest on the trade advances given is at arms length. It is also to be kept in mind that assessee has not advanced any funds as such to the Associated Enterprises and the transaction is on goods supplied on a credit period of 3 months. Therefore, on the facts of this case, as the DRP accepted similar rate of + 1% for guarantee fee vide its order referred above, we uphold the assessee’s contention that LIBOR + 1% is at arms length. However, this finding should not be considered as a precedent either in assessee’s own case in other assessment years or in any other case as this decision was given in the light of fact that DRP itself has accepted the guarantee commission of + 1% on its next objection. - Decided in favour of assessee. Reducing the operating profits of the tax payer being the income from settlement of patent infringement suit credited to profit and loss account - whether the income accounted by the assessee will become operational income for the purpose of arriving at the operational profit? - Held that:- The Assessing Officer has excluded the same stating that the same is nothing but notional revenue. We agree with the finding of the Assessing Officer as held by the DRP that the income from settlement of patent infringement cannot become part of operating revenues either on bulk drug manufacturing (API) segment or on product development service (PDS) segment which are two different segments in which assessee is operating and accordingly we agree with the DRP’s stand that this income falls under the category of ‘other income’ and not operating revenue. Not only that the income does not pertain to the relevant financial year nor the costs are incurred in the year under consideration. If without the cost, the income is included in the computation of operational profits, the same gets skewed because of inclusion of extraordinary items. It was decided in number of cases by the Tribunal that incomes of extraordinary nature are to be excluded and further extraordinary events in any company also make it non-comparable while doing exercise of FAR analysis for comparability purpose. For the reasons stated above, we agree with the Assessing Officer/DRP that this income from settlement of patent infringement cannot be considered as operational income while working out the segmental profits or as total profits of the assessee for the purpose of comparison. At best, it can be considered as another segment of income for which no expenditure was charged, but the same cannot be included in either of the segmental operations of the assessee - Decided against assessee. Transfer pricing adjustment - segmental financials certified by the cost auditors and the profit margins arrived between the AE and non-AE transactions - Held that:- We are of the opinion that the DRP’s order on this issue is not fully based on the facts. While accepting that the segmental financials certified by the cost auditors and the profit margins arrived between the AE and non-AE transactions are comparable, why the DRP did not accept the entire segmental finances furnished with reference to two business segments is not explained. There is no reason to reject the segmental accounts when they are partially accepted for internal comparison as was done by the DRP extracted above. In view of this, we are of the opinion that TPO should have based his analysis on the segmental financials reported by the assessee duly certified by cost auditors. Various case law relied upon by the assessee also, supports the above which, we do not intend to extract in this order. Suffice to say that since assessee operates in two business segments whose profit margins are entirely different, the segmental reporting undertaken by the assessee based on the cost audit report should be the basis for necessary analysis by the TPO. Selection of comparable - Held that:- TPO should re-do fresh analysis of the comparables and analyse the fresh adjustments, after giving due opportunity to the assessee. Since assessee’s segmental profits and its profit margins between AE and non-AE are also available, the TPO can examine whether the internal CUP available with the one of the business segments can be accepted as such. In case it is not possible to accept then, fresh comparables should be selected and PLI has to be determined so as to examine assessee’s profit margins. For this purpose, we set aside the order of TPO with reference to the determination of ALP on these two segments and direct the TPO to undertake fresh search and compare with the segmental profits submitted by the assessee. However, he is free to examine segmental profits - Inclusion and exclusion of some of the receipts and cost claimed are proper or not. TPO’s comparison should be based on segmental profits alone and not at the entity level. Moreover, the assessee is also objecting to arriving at the cost, as far as the PDS is concerned. These objections also should be examined and clear finding should be given, while doing the T.P. analysis. Therefore, while accepting the assessee’s objections in the grounds raised, we restore the issue to the file of the TPO for fresh determination based on the segmental profits and selection of comparables if required. Include reimbursement of expenses received by the tax payer as subject to Arms Length pricing under sec.92CA - Held that:- this issue required to be examined by the Assessing Officer/TPO in detail whether the said amount claimed to have received by the assessee as reimbursement expenses are indeed reimbursement or not. In case of reimbursement at cost of the expenditure incurred on behalf of the AEs and has not formed part of the expenditure claimed as operating cost of the assessee then, the reimbursement should not be considered as part of assessee’s sales. The amounts should be excluded in computing the operating profits. Since the Assessing Officer has not examined and it is also not on record whether the said expenditure was not part of claim under section 37(1) of the I.T. Act in the regular computation or not, in the interest of justice, we remit the matter back to the file of the TPO to examine the facts and to exclude only in the case the said amount is reimbursement of expenditure and there was no claim by the assessee in its computation of income - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Non entitlement to deduct expenditure disallowed in the hands of Astrix Laboratories Limited (a resident J.V Company) under sec. 92CA - Held that:- there is no dispute with reference to the receipt of these amounts, one as an income i.e., management fee of ₹ 1.12 crores and other being the reimbursement of expenses of ₹ 1.05 crores. As far as the reimbursement of expenditure is concerned, we have already directed in the earlier ground to consider the nature of amount and exclude from the computation for the purpose of transfer pricing on verification. Therefore, to that extent, the claim will be a double claim. With reference to the management fee, we are not sure why there is an adjustment in another domestic transaction, if contentions of assessee are correct. If transaction is between two domestic companies transfer pricing regulations does not apply in the impugned year. If one domestic company paid to its AE and assessee receives from AE, the transactions are different in nature. Whether the same can be allowed in the hands of other domestic company or not has no bearing in the assessee’s hands as the said amount was received and was accepted by the assessee to be taxed. We approve the DRP observation that taxability or otherwise of the amount in one hand does not affect the adjustment in other hand unless it is provided so in the Act. - Decided against assessee. Non granting the benefit of the (+/-) 5% standard deduction as per the proviso to Section 92C(2) - Held that:- This ground is legal in nature and depending on the facts, the Assessing Officer is directed to consider this adjustment of plus or minus 5% as per the provisions of the Act if the ALP determined is within the range. This ground is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to be examined as the main issue of adjustments were already restored to the TPO against grounds No. 3 to 8. Deduction claimed u/s. 10B in respect of Export Oriented Undertaking situated at Jeedimetla (Unit 3.2) - Held that:- The DRP, however, noticed that the issue is subject to revisional proceedings by the CIT and the writ petition is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. Since the matter is contested at the Higher Forum legally, the DRP considered it fit not to interfere with the stand of the Assessing Officer but however, directed the Assessing Officer to follow the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. as and when issue was decided. It further suggested that demand on account of disallowance of deduction be kept in abeyance till the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. The assessee has raised this issue before us but submitted that the matter is subjudice. Since the DRP has already given clear directions on this issue, we uphold the directions of the DRP with an observation that the Assessing Officer should follow the same as and when that issue is decided by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance of amount debited to Profit & Loss account in respect of Employee Stock Option Scheme - Held that:- he difference (discount) between the market price of the shares and their issue price is "expenditure" in the hands of the assessee because it is a substitute to giving direct incentive in cash for availing the services of the employees. There is no difference between a case where the company issues shares to the public at market price and pays a part of the premium to the employees for their services and another where the shares are directly issued to employees at a reduced rate. In both situations, the employees stand compensated for their effort. By undertaking to issue shares at a discount, the company does not pay anything to its employees but incurs the obligation of issuing shares at a discounted price at a future date. This is nothing but "expenditure" u/s 37(1) -The liability cannot be regarded as being "contingent" in nature because the rendering of service for one year is sine qua non for becoming eligible to avail the benefit under the scheme. Once the service is rendered for one year, it becomes obligatory on the part of the company to honor its commitment of allowing the vesting of 25% of the option. The liability is incurred at the end of the first year though it is discharged at the end of the fourth year when the options are exercised by the employees. The fact that some options may lapse due to non-exercise / resignation etc does not make the entire liability contingent - However, the obligation to issue shares at a discounted premium does not arise at the stage the options are granted. It arises at the stage that the options are vested in the employees. The amount deductible has to be determined based on the period and percentage of vesting under the ESOP scheme - Therefore, considering the request, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the claim afresh in the light of decision of the Hon’ble Special Bench of the ITAT Bangalore in the case of M/s. Biocon (2013 (8) TMI 629 - ITAT BANGALORE ) - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Quantification of amount eligible for deduction under section 10B - common corporate overheads should be apportioned on the basis of ratio of turnover of the unit to the ‘total turnover’ of the company and in this manner reducing the eligible profits under Sec. 10B as concluded by CIT(A) - Held that:- Unit starts production only at the fag end of the year cost of working on that unit throughout the year for establishing / starting production may not result in allocation of actual expenditure if turn over is considered. In view of this, since Assessing Officer has not given any rationale in adopting the turnover as the basis, ignoring the assessee’s method, we are of the opinion that allocation of expenditure as was done by the assessee is more rationale and is in tune with the principles laid down by the Institute of Cost Accountants and also for the purpose of Company Law. Therefore, considering the detailed objections raised by the assessee as placed in the objections to the DRP, we are of the opinion that the allocation by the assessee is to be upheld. Assessing Officer is directed to accept the assessee’s allocation of corporate overheads - Decided in favour of assessee. Claim of depreciation on brought forward written down value in respect of non-compete fee - Held that:- Since, ITAT has already ordered the depreciation to be allowed in assessment year 2002-2003, consequently, depreciation has to be allowed by the Assessing Officer in this year. He is empowered to take rectification proceedings in case that order was not upheld by the Hon’ble High Court. In view of this, to that extent of claim of depreciation amounting to ₹ 8,89,893/- on brought forward written down value, Assessing Officer is directed to allow the depreciation after verifying the WDV figures. The depreciation cannot be allowed on an amount of non-compete fee, which was in fact paid to the Managing Director of the Company for not taking any employment. This cannot be considered under section 32(1) as an intangible asset. Disallowance of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) - Held that:- fter considering the submissions of the assessee, we agree with the assessee that it is entitled for 150% of the amount actually spent as weighted deduction under the provisions of sec.35(2AB). Since the amount of ₹ 32,73,07,418/- was the actual amount certified by the relevant authority, the assessee is entitled for the deduction at 150%. Since the Assessing Officer allowed only 100% claimed, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow balance 50% thereof - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of deduction @ 100% in respect of the balance R & D expenditure for which the prescribed authority denied weighted deduction - Held that:- Assessing Officer and DRP has not applied their mind to the amounts involved. Since the entire claim of the assessee was rejected summarily without examining the facts, we are of the opinion that this expenditure of ₹ 56,35,712/- in respect of R & D expenditure is to be considered under section 35(1), if not for the weighted deduction under section 35(2AB). Assessing Officer is directed to examine the necessary expenditure and allow the claim. Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
|