2025 (7) TMI 590 - AT - Income Tax

TP Adjustment - DRP/TPO held Foreign exchange loss to be an operating item - HELD THAT - It is noticed by us that this identical issue had later on come up for consideration in assessee s own case for AY 2014-15 2024 (6) TMI 1479 - ITAT CHENNAI and same line of argument was put forth by the assessee. Having considered the nature of business of the assessee this Tribunal is noted to have held that foreign exchange loss was not an extraordinary item and therefore no adjustment was warranted in this regard. As held forex gains / losses are part of normal business operations only. Further the assessee is engaged in export of goods also and is having earnings in foreign currency. Therefore the resultant gains or losses could not be treated as extraordinary in nature. No such adjustment could be granted to the assessee. No infirmity in the order of the lower authorities holding the foreign exchange loss to be an operating item. Product development expenses was non-operative in nature - According to the Ld. DRP/TPO the product development expenses were in the nature of operating item whereas it was the assessee s case that these expenses were neither incurred during the year and nor were linked to its revenues and therefore it was rightly adjusted/excluded from the computation of their PLI - We find that this identical issue was adjudicated by this Tribunal in assessee s own case for AY 2014-15 2024 (6) TMI 1479 - ITAT CHENNAI as held TPO has allowed adjustment of the product development expenses in 2014-15. Having gone through the material placed before us and following the decision (supra) we find merit in the plea of the assessee.TPO is directed to consider the same in light of the view taken in earlier AYs 2012-13 2014-15; and the assessee is directed to provide the relevant data to substantiate the same.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

• Whether the foreign exchange fluctuation loss incurred by the assessee should be treated as an extraordinary (non-operating) item or as an operating item for the purpose of computing the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) under transfer pricing provisions;
• Whether the product development expenses claimed by the assessee should be treated as operating expenses or excluded from the PLI computation as non-operating expenses, given that such expenses were allegedly not incurred during the year under consideration and lacked direct linkage to revenue;
• Whether the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal should be condoned on account of the Covid-19 lockdown;
• Whether the adjustments made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and accepted by the Assessing Officer (AO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in respect of the above issues stand on sound legal and factual footing.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Delay in Filing Appeal

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the appeal, attributing the delay primarily to the Covid-19 lockdown restrictions. Upon examining the affidavit and the circumstances, the Tribunal found reasonable cause for the delay and exercised discretion to condone the delay, thereby admitting the appeal for adjudication on merits.

Treatment of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation Loss

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Under the transfer pricing provisions, the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) is computed to benchmark the arm's length price of international transactions. The question whether foreign exchange (forex) gains or losses are operating or non-operating (extraordinary) items affects whether such losses are included in the PLI computation. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2014-15 (IT(TP) No.66/Chny/2018 dated 12.06.2024), which was binding and not res integra.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee's business involves import and export transactions with associated enterprises, inherently exposing it to forex risk. The assessee argued that the forex loss of Rs. 2,31,20,681/- was extraordinary due to sharp currency volatility over multiple years, with prices negotiated in FY 2011-12 at a lower exchange rate and imports occurring in AY 2015-16 at a substantially higher rate, causing significant loss.

The Tribunal, however, held that forex gains and losses are integral to normal business operations in the assessee's line of business, especially given the export component generating foreign currency earnings. The Tribunal reasoned that such fluctuations are part and parcel of the business risk and do not qualify as extraordinary items. It quoted the earlier ruling:

"Forex gains / losses are part of normal business operations only. Further, the assessee is engaged in export of goods also and is having earnings in foreign currency. Therefore, the resultant gains or losses could not be treated as extraordinary in nature. No such adjustment could be granted to the assessee."

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal examined the nature of the assessee's business, the currency fluctuations, and prior judicial pronouncements. The assessee's contention on volatility and timing differences in price negotiation versus import was acknowledged but found insufficient to classify the forex loss as extraordinary.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the principle that operating items include all income and expenses arising from the ordinary course of business, the Tribunal affirmed the treatment of forex loss as operating in nature. This meant the forex loss was to be included in the PLI computation without adjustment.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's plea for extraordinary classification was rejected in view of consistent prior rulings and the nature of business operations. The Revenue's stand, supported by the AO, TPO, and DRP, was accepted.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the order of the lower authorities, holding that the foreign exchange loss was an operating item and no adjustment for extraordinary loss was warranted.

Treatment of Product Development Expenses

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Product development expenses may be treated as operating or non-operating depending on their nature, timing, and linkage to revenue. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision for AY 2014-15 (IT(TP) No.66/Chny/2018 dated 12.06.2024), where the issue was adjudicated with directions for further consideration.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee contended that product development expenses were neither incurred during the year under consideration nor linked to revenue of that year, hence rightly excluded from the PLI computation. The DRP and TPO treated these expenses as operating in nature and included them.

The Tribunal noted from the earlier ruling that the product development expenses related to support services rendered during the development of a new car model by a third party (HMIL), with uncertain benefit and no direct link to the year's revenue. The Tribunal had directed the TPO to consider the assessee's submissions and allow adjustment if substantiated.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee was directed to furnish data substantiating the claim that the expenses were not incurred during the year and lacked direct revenue linkage. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea based on the prior decision and material placed on record.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that expenses not incurred in the year or not linked to revenue should be excluded from operating expenses for PLI computation. The TPO was directed to reconsider the issue in light of the earlier findings and the data to be provided by the assessee.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal balanced the Revenue's position against the assessee's evidence and earlier judicial directions, ultimately favoring the assessee's claim subject to verification.

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the product development expenses to be excluded from the PLI computation, directing the TPO to consider the claim afresh with the relevant data.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal's significant legal holdings include:

"Forex gains / losses are part of normal business operations only. Further, the assessee is engaged in export of goods also and is having earnings in foreign currency. Therefore, the resultant gains or losses could not be treated as extraordinary in nature. No such adjustment could be granted to the assessee."

This establishes the core principle that foreign exchange fluctuations in businesses engaged in import-export transactions with associated enterprises are operating items and must be included in transfer pricing computations.

Regarding product development expenses, the Tribunal held that expenses not incurred during the year and lacking direct linkage to revenue should be excluded from operating expenses in transfer pricing analysis, subject to substantiation. This preserves the principle of matching expenses to the relevant accounting period and revenue generation for accurate arm's length pricing.

On procedural grounds, the Tribunal exercised discretion to condone delay caused by extraordinary circumstances (Covid-19 lockdown), emphasizing reasonable cause as sufficient for admission of appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by confirming the treatment of forex loss as operating and directing reconsideration of product development expenses exclusion, thereby refining the transfer pricing adjustments for the assessment year under consideration.