Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1776 - AT - Income TaxProvision made for Excise duty and interest due on Excise duty - addition u/s 43B - Held that:- The claim of assessee is in respect of Excise duty paid and the interest on Excise duty paid in July, 2005 i.e. before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1) for which a provision was made as on the close of the year. The said payment is in respect of Excise duty due for the current year and also for the previous years and the interest is due on the late payment of Excise duty dues for the earlier years. We find no merit in the stand of Revenue that the said Excise duty being not recorded in the books of account in the respective years, cannot be allowed as business expenditure during the previous year in which they were paid. Reversing the order of CIT (A), we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of assessee on account of provision made for Excise duty and interest due on Excise duty Non deduction of tax at source on payment towards technical fees and also rent - Held that:- Sum was allocated to different companies by TACO; the said amount was paid by TACO and the assessee reimbursed the same. In respect of Jamshedpur office also, it was pointed out that the recovery of rent was made from the assessee and in view thereof, there was no requirement to deduct tax at source. In view of the evidence produced, we find merit in the plea of assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of assessee. TPA - MAM selection - CUP method v/s TNMM - Held that:- We find no merit in the plea of assessee in the absence of any third party evidence and we reject the plea of assessee in this regard. Similarly, in respect of import of machinery where the assessee had purchased the machinery from its associated enterprises on its specification, CUP method cannot be applied to benchmark its transactions. In respect of export of goods, wherein the assessee had made a comparison between the margins of associated enterprises segment with non-associated enterprises but because of import of raw material being utilized by both the segments and the same being tainted, then there is no merit in applying CPM method. In respect of payment of royalty and technical consultancy fees and interest on delayed payments, the assessee has not raised any issues either before the CIT (A) or before us and in view thereof, we reject the application of CUP method by the assessee and uphold the approach of the TPO in applying TNMM method on aggregate basis. Comparable selection - bench-marking - selection of new comparables - Held that:- In the case before us, the year of taxation is assessment year 2005-06 which were the initial years of transfer pricing and because of availability of data of concerns which were functionally comparable to the assessee, there is no merit in the rejection of said additional evidence by the CIT (A) at the initial stage itself. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of CIT (A) and hold that in case two concerns Minda S A I Ltd. and Ellora Trading Ltd. are functionally comparable to the assessee, then the margins of said concerns be applied to benchmark the international transactions undertaken by the assessee. In respect of Ellora Trading Ltd., the assessee had taken the said concern to be functionally comparable in its TP study report during assessment year 2007-08 and the TPO has not passed any adverse comments on the acceptability of the same. In respect of Minda S A I Ltd., the TPO himself in the transfer pricing order for assessment year 2009-10 had taken the said company as functionally comparable. Once the said concerns are accepted to be functionally comparable in subsequent years and unless it is brought on record that the functions performed by the said concerns in the year under consideration were different than the functions performed in later years, then the said concerns cannot be rejected to be comparable. The data which was available could be considered as reliable data. We find merit in the plea of assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to benchmark the international transactions of assessee by applying TNMM method and comparing the margins of assessee with margins of two concerns i.e. Minda S A I Ltd. and Ellora Trading Ltd. as against the comparables originally adopted by the TPO and upheld by the CIT (A). The Assessing Officer shall determine the addition, if any, with respect to assessee’s international transactions with its associated enterprises on an aggregate basis under TNMM method. Adjustment on account of such difference in the depreciation between assessee and comparable companies under TNMM method. not to be allowed - See VISHAY COMPONENTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE [2017 (2) TMI 636 - ITAT PUNE]. Proportionate adjustment to be made while applying TNMM method only to the international transactions undertaken and not at the entity level - Held that:- We find that the issue is covered by the ratio laid down in CIT v. Thyssen Krupp Industries India (P.) Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 1076 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CIT v. Keihin Panalfa Ltd. [2016 (5) TMI 203 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Hence, we direct the TPO to compute transfer pricing adjustment, if any, only with respect to international transactions. Computation of operating margins of assessee by considering the interest expenditure, loan processing charges and loss on disposal of assets as operating expenditure - Held that:- Issue of working of operating margins on account of loss on disposal of assets, loan processing charges and interest expenditure, whether is non-operating or operating in nature, has not been looked into either by the TPO or by the CIT (A). The assessee had raised this issue and hence, additional ground of appeal No.9 is admitted. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee points out that the interest expenses and loss on disposal of assets has been held to be non-operating in the hands of assessee in later years. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer / TPO to verify this plea of assessee. In case, similar expenditure has not been taken as non-operating in nature and the expenditure booked in the year under consideration is falling in same category, then the same is not to be included as part of operating cost. AO/ TPO is also directed to look into the plea of assessee with regard to loan processing charges and the nature of such charges. In respect of scrap sales, in case, it arises on account of business activity of the assessee, then the same is to be included in the hands of assessee as operating revenue. Economic adjustment for higher import content of assessee vis-a-vis comparable companies - Held that:- Additional ground of appeal is that no such plea was ever raised before any authorities below. The assessee in order to plead its case of economic adjustment for higher import content of the assessee vis-a-vis its comparables has moved an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 seeking permission to file additional evidence. In support of the said claim, the assessee has attached computation of excess non-CENVAT duty paid by the assessee during the year and detailed computation of import of raw materials, spares and components along with Schedules forming part of the account for the year ending 31.03.2005, wherein in the notes to the accounts, consumption of raw materials, CIF value of imports, etc. are provided. In appendix-2, the assessee provided other details. Disallowance on account of payment of earlier assessment years Excise duty in current year be added to the profit of assessee for calculating Profit Level Indicator - Held that:- We have already decided the issue of allowability of Excise duty both in respect of earlier years and current year along with interest on delayed payment of Excise duty as allowable in the hands of assessee. Hence, the Assessing Officer is not to re-compute assessee’s PLI after including the amount of disallowance made on account of Excise duty. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are allowed though on different grounds.
|