Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (2) TMI 168

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng in respect of inclusion or exclusion of comparables. Therefore, as observed above, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of TPO for determining the ALP of international transactions in manufacturing segment. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its contentions. The TPO shall afford reasonable opportunity for the assessee and decide the issue of manufacturing segment as indicated above. Thus, ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Addition u/s 43B - Disallowance of provision for management incentive performance reward - CIT(A) held the said bonus is payable to the higher management employees in relation to the services rendered by them and it is covered u/s. 36 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... facturing of Automobile Ancillaries, Heat Exchanges i.e. Radiators, Evaporators, Condensers and Automotive Air Conditioning System. It is a Joint Venture ratio of 60:40 between Behr Group, Germany and Anand Group, India. The assessee has undertaken international transactions in the manufacturing segment. It has shown the nature of transactions separately like purchase of raw material and components of homogeneous nature, sale of finished goods of homogeneous nature, payment of royalty, products development and testing services, products development cost capitalized which are at para No. 4 of the order of TPO. The assessee has taken different method for each of the transactions stated above involving the manufacturing segment like TNMM using .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se no finding was given in respect of inclusion of comparables but however the ld. AR agreed that the assessee is satisfied with the aggregation of manufacturing segment as held by the CIT(A)/TPO and the assessee did not question the view of Revenue authorities for A.Y. 2009-10. Thus, it is clear from the assessee s side though the assessee shown the transactions separately in manufacturing segment but however accepted aggregation of manufacturing segment. It is observed from Page No. 2 of the TPO s order that the nature of transactions in respect of manufacturing segment are four and applied TNMM and CUP method separately to the said transactions. As discussed above having accepted TNMM and aggregation of the nature of transactions involvi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... employees and claimed the said amount is not covered under the payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Further, it was claimed the payment is based on the performance measured on the key parameters assigned to employees to achieve certain goals and in the incentive bonus is normally paid in the month of January for the earlier calendar year. Provision for such payment is made during January to March in the books of account. The AO determined the assessment of performance of employees covered under this category has to be for the entire year and rejected the contention of assessee, disallowed the above said amount u/s. 43B of the Act. The CIT(A) held the said bonus is payable to the higher management employees in relation to the services rendered by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re of the terms of good work reward and have held that this case is distinguishable in facts with regard to the case of the assessee where it is a question of giving incentive bonus. This observation of the Revenue Authorities is incorrect since the facts on records clearly demonstrates that the issue of bonus as well as issue of MIBP are in altogether different terms and conditions. The judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court has referred to the Good Work Reward and it has been clearly held that it does not constitute bonus within meaning of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act and was allowable as normal business expenditure u/s.37 of the Act. The documents placed on record and the facts demonstrated is squarely covered by this decision of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates