Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 1155 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of depreciation - adopting wrong "actual cost" of the assets vested in pursuance of Scheme of Arrangement by relying on his predecessor's assessment order - HELD THAT:- As identical issue arose in the case of A.Y. 1999-2000 to A.Y. 2013-14 [2013 (2) TMI 927 - ITAT MUMBAI], 1829989, [2020 (7) TMI 155 - ITAT MUMBAI], [2017 (4) TMI 862 - ITAT MUMBAI], [2019 (6) TMI 542 - ITAT MUMBAI], [2019 (5) TMI 411 - ITAT MUMBAI] respectively where the co-ordinate Bench restored issue back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for the computation. Therefore, this matter as per this ground should also be restored to the file of the learned Assessing Officer. CENVAT credit addition - assessee company has followed the inclusive method for valuation of inventory - HELD THAT:- As in the opening and closing stock, both, the assessee has included the amount of excise duty. Therefore, the effects of excise duty in the closing stock in pursuance of provisions of Section 145A of the Act were already included in the profit offered by the assessee. There was no adjustment / addition was required to be made. AO made the adjustment. This issue is already decided by the co-ordinate Bench and therefore, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2007-08 to 2009-10, the addition deserves to be deleted. Disallowance of claim of writing off non-moving and obsolete finished goods - AO held that there is no concrete evidence of any write off or co-relation of sale out of such alleged written off material, made the addition - HELD THAT:- As the provision is made by the assessee in the earlier year which was not claimed as deduction in that year but would actually provisions are reversed and actual write off of the inventory is made in this year and assessee has claimed it as deduction. We find that the above sum disallowed amounts to double disallowance. Accordingly, we direct the learned Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance. TP Adjustment - addition on account of the Arm's Length Price of interest on interest free loan given by the assessee to Piramal Glass, UK Limited - HELD THAT:- As respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case in many assessment years, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned assessing officer/transfer pricing officer in adopting interest on interest for loan to the UK subsidiary company at arm's length at LIBOR +200 points. Accordingly, the adjustment made by the learned AO/TPO on this count is confirmed. Argument that LIBOR rate without any markup should have been used based on certain decisions is devoid of any merit because the London interbank offered rate (LIBOR) is benchmarking interest rate at which major global banks lend to one another in the international interbank market for short-term loans. Before us, it is not established that the lender as well as the borrower is a bank - it is not a short-term loan. Therefore, we need not refer to the several judicial precedents cited before us. Hence, this argument is rejected. Commercial expediency can also not be tested in transfer pricing because the assessee has given loan to an independent entity, may be subsidiary of the assessee, however in normal course the assessee would not have given any sum to an independent party without charging interest. Further, the reliance placed by the learned and authorized representative on the decision of coordinate bench [2013 (10) TMI 1569 - ITAT MUMBAI] is also not correct because the fact in that case shows that the advances were given only for the period of six months - it has been categorically held that the coordinate bench agreed with the submission of the revenue that commercial expediency is not relevant in making transfer-pricing adjustments. As it was an initial year of the subsidiary company and assessee has advanced interest-free funds to its subsidiary as a matter of commercial production by fulfilling the shareholder obligation - Any financial incapacitation of the subsidiary would joke arise the appellant's investment. Accordingly, the appellant's expectation from granting of loan is not on interest but to protect its investment interest and help the subsidiary company achieve its business objectives thus the said loan was granted in the nature of shareholder activity. It was further stated that though the said interest free loan is a loan in a legal firm but in substance is in the nature of quasi equity. The assessee has merely made the submission however has not substantiated it by putting any financial data to justify the above claim. In the transfer pricing study report also assessee has not given any justification on these grounds. Assessee submitted that it had sufficient own funds available at its disposal out of which the loan was given to the subsidiary company to meet its working capital requirements and therefore knowing charging of interest is justified - AR failed to show us any provision of the income tax act in chapter X to show that payment of interest by the lender is a necessary condition to determine the arm's-length price of an international transaction of loan by assessee to its subsidiary company. Therefore, this argument also deserves to be rejected. Addition on account of compensation for providing corporate guarantee to Piramal glass USA and Grammar Glass Europe - TPO adopted compensation at the rate of 3% per annum and computed the arm's-length price of the guarantee commission. When the matter was set aside by the coordinate bench back to the file of the learned dispute resolution panel, found that in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2007 – 08, 2009 – 10 and 2011 – 12 to 2012 – 13 the arm's-length rate of 0.5% was considered at arm's length. DRP also followed the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in adopting such rate. No infirmity in such direction. Based on the same the guarantee commission was considered at arm's length. We do not find any infirmity in the direction of the learned dispute resolution panel and consequent adjustment made by the learned TPO/AO. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
|