Law and Practice : Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser
Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1774 - AT - Income Tax
TP Adjustment - addition of advertisement, marketing and promotion (AMP expenses) - as argued from the side of the assessee that assessee-company had incurred expenditure on AMP to cater to the needs of the customers in the local market and such an expenditure was neither incurred at the instance or behest of overseas AE nor there was any mutual understanding or arrangement or allocation or contribution by the AE towards reimbursement of any part of AMP expenditure incurred by it for the purpose of its business - HELD THAT:- In this case, the assessee undisputedly is an independent distributor whereby it was purchasing finished goods and spare parts from its AE and selling the same in India on its own risk and the profit derived from such sales has been offered to tax in India.
Legal ownership of intangibles, by itself, does not confer any right ultimately to retain returns derived by MNE group from exploiting the intangibles, even though such returns is initially accruing to the legal owner as a result of its legal /contractual right to exploit the intangible. The return depends upon the functions performed by the legal owner, assets it uses, and the risks assumed; and if the legal owner does not perform any relevant function, uses no relevant assets, and assumes no relevant risks, but acts solely as a title holding entity, then the legal owner of the intangible will not be entitled to any portion of the return derived by the MNE group from the exploitation of the intangible other than the Arm’s Length compensation if any for holding the title.
It would be very difficult to treat AMP as separate international transaction and any attempt to benchmark such a presume transaction in any manner would be a very difficult exercise.
The entire finding and approach of the TPO and DRP has been purely based on hypothesis and one of the agreement entered in the earlier year for a limited period of six months and this has been stated to be a material so as to determine that there was an international transaction qua AMP expenditure in this year. Such a presumption based on said agreement cannot be inferred in this year at all as, firstly, it was for a very limited period in one of the earlier year as stated above; and secondly, each year has to be seen independently and if no such material act is permeating then presumption cannot be drawn for perpetuity. Thus, Revenue has failed to bring on record any material or any kind of arrangement existing between the AE and Assessee Company that there was separate international transaction with regard to AMP expenditure. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that AMP expenditure cannot be treated as separate international transaction which needs separate benchmarking and accordingly we delete the entire AMP adjustment made by the Assessing Officer.
Addition of bad debts - All the conditions laid down for claiming of bad debt in accordance with Section 36(1)(vii) stands duly satisfied; and we find no reason as to why the Assessing Officer has made the disallowance, when assessee has produced all the copy of ledger account which contains amount taken as sales in the earlier years and same has been written off in this year. Accordingly, the addition on account of bad debt is directed to be deleted.
Deduction u/s.10A - HELD THAT:- Deduction shall not be allowed after 1st day of April, 2010. Later on, by Finance Act, 2010, there was an amendment in the proviso to Section 10A (1), whereby the sunset clause was extended by one more year, i.e., Assessment Year 2011-12. The impact of said amendment would be that the unit set up in financial year 2001-02 will get full tenure of deduction, whereas any STP unit set up later on will get a limited tenure. Thus, assessee was entitled for deduction u/s.10A (1) wherein there was no such limit on claim of deduction. It was only in Section 10A (1A) which is applicable to SEZ, that such limit of time period for claim of deduction of 100%, 50% and 30% has been laid down. Since here in this case assessee is having a STP unit and not SEZ therefore, ld. DRP was correct in holding that provision of Section 10A (1A) will not apply, but Section 10A (1) only. Accordingly, the direction of the DRP is affirmed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.