Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 219 - AT - Income TaxRoyalty receipt - Quantification of royalty adjustment - HELD THAT:- We find that on the same agreement, ITAT in earlier years have given a finding and has directed the rates at which royalty should be charged. Now, ld. DR for the Revenue is finding fault in the aforesaid order and arguing that the same need not to be followed. However, we are of the considered opinion that order of the ITAT in assessee’s own case in earlier years need to be followed for the principles of judicial discipline. It is also not the case that Hon’ble Delhi High Court has reversed the orders of ITAT We direct that in case of Dabur Nepal (P) Ltd., royalty is quantified at nil, the case of Dabur International UAE, royalty is quantified at 0.75% of FOB sales and in case of Asian Consumer Care Ltd., Bangladesh, royalty is quantified at 0.75% of FOB sales. Corporate guarantee charges - TPO determined arm’s length price of providing corporate guarantee @ 75% of interest - HELD THAT:- We find that in assessee’s own case, ITAT has for three successive years given orders which have not been reversed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, hence we are not convinced with the reasoning of ld. DR for the Revenue to depart from the aforesaid order of ITAT in assessee’s own case - Since the above order of ITAT is in assessee’s own case and we are not convinced with the reasoning of the ld. DR to depart from the same, we follow the order of aforesaid coordinate Bench of the Tribunal and direct accordingly. Interest on loan to AE - TPO adopted PLR + 3% and imputed rate of interest @ 14.88% - HELD THAT:- We find that in assessee’s own case, ITAT has upheld the deletion by the ld. CIT (A). ITAT has duly found that the same was in accordance with the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Cotton Naturals (I) Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 1031 - DELHI HIGH COURT] ITAT has also referred to other decisions. In this view of the matter, we are not convinced with the reasoning given by the ld. DR for the Revenue to distinguish the ITAT decision in assessee’s own case. Accordingly, we uphold the order of ld. CIT (A) on this issue and deletion of the addition. Interest on receivables - TPO held that interest rate of 14.88% would be the arm’s length interest for the receivables form the AE - CIT (A) gave relief to the assessee on a finding that assessee does not charge interest from its unrelated parties also and that the net margin of the assessee in these transactions with AEs is significantly higher - HELD THAT:- Upon careful consideration, we are not in agreement with the submission of ld. DR. It is no doubt that after the amendment, receivables are an international transaction which needs to be benchmarked separately but as rightly pointed out by the ld. CIT (A) above that the margin of the assessee both in FMCG and non-FMCG segment is much higher than the comparables. Hence, since benchmarking under both the segments has been accepted in the transfer pricing, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT (A) that there is no reason to separately benchmark receivables. Deduction u/s 80IB and 80IC by further allocation of Head Office expenses to eligible units - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2021 (2) TMI 1250 - ITAT DELHI] units are eligible for the deduction u/s 80IB/80IC which is identical to that of earlier years i.e. 2007-08 and 2009-10. Hence, the CIT(A) has rightly allowed this deduction. It is pertinent to note that similar allocation of expenses and depreciation made by the Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2008-09 was also deleted by the Tribunal. Belated payment of employees contribution of ESI under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) - HELD THAT:- This issue is now covered in favour of the assessee even after the amendment as held by ITAT Delhi Benches. ITAT, Delhi in the case of M/s. Express Roadway [2021 (10) TMI 514 - ITAT DELHI] has followed Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. [2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and SPL Industries [2010 (7) TMI 81 - DELHI HIGH COURT] for the proposition that such additions are not sustainable if the impugned payments are done upto the date of filing of return of income for the concerned assessment year. Hence, we uphold the order of ld. CIT (A). Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- We find that the facts in the present case are also not in dispute that assessee has not earned any exempt income. In this view of the matter, disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D is not permissible hence this ground of Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Additional claim of the assessee on account of refund of excise duty on capital subsidy and claim of expenses on stock option scheme on the reasoning that the same was not claimed by filing revised return of income - HELD THAT:- We note that ITAT in assessee’s own case for AYs 2006-07 [2017 (4) TMI 1521 - ITAT DELHI] AY 2007-08-2008-09 [2021 (2) TMI 1250 - ITAT DELHI] to 2009-10 [2022 (1) TMI 1145 - ITAT DELHI] had admitted the claim and remanded the matter to the file of AO for adjudication. Moreover, in Goetze India Ltd. case [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] has expounded that decision in that case would not impinge upon the power of the ITAT in admitting the claims otherwise than by revising the return of income. Since consistently ITAT in assessee’s own case had admitted such claims and remanded the file to AO to adjudicate the same as per law, we follow the same and admit these two claims - Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of AO to adjudicate as per law.
|