Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 202 - ITAT MUMBAITP Adjustment - adjustment in respect of Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenditure - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2018 (11) TMI 1106 - ITAT MUMBAI] AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee not being an international transaction as defined under section 92B of the Act, no transfer pricing adjustment could have been made by the Transfer Pricing Officer. More so, when the method adopted by the Transfer Pricing Officer for making such adjustment is not provided under the statute. Before parting, we must observe that all other international transactions entered into between the assessee and its AE were found to be at arm’s length. It is also not disputed, if the international transactions are considered as a whole, the margin shown by the assessee is more than the margin shown by the comparables selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer. Assessee Grounds raised are allowed. Adjustment in respect of technical support services, other support services and pass through cost - HELD THAT:- We notice from the records that TPO & Ld. DRP has not examined the voluminous data submitted by assessee. Ld. DRP merely observed that the clinical trials are not conducted on its own, the assessee neither has personnel nor infrastructure to conduct such trials, therefore, it cannot be termed as technical service. Hence, he rejected the submissions of the assessee without actually verifying the data before them. Therefore, it is fit case for restoring the matter to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication of the matter on merits. Accordingly, these grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance u/s. 36(1)(iii) - sufficiency of own funds - HELD THAT:- Since, assessee has sufficient funds and by following the above decision, no disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act is warranted. Accordingly these grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. Education Cess allowability - Addition u/s 40(a)(ii) - deductible expenses u/s. 37 - whether the expression “any rate or tax levied” as it appears in Section 40(a)(ii) includes “cess”? - HELD THAT:- As decided in SESA GOA LIMITED [2020 (3) TMI 347 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] The CBDT Circular, is binding upon the authorities under the IT Act like Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority. The CBDT Circular is quite consistent with the principles of interpretation of taxing statute. This, according to us, is an additional reason as to why the expression "cess" ought not to be read or included in the expression "any rate or tax levied" as appearing in Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. In the Income Tax Act, 1922, Section 10(4) had banned allowance of any sum paid on account of 'any cess, rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession'. In the corresponding Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961 the expression "cess" is quite conspicuous by its absence. In fact, legislative history bears out that this expression was in fact to be found in the Income Tax Bill, 1961 which was introduced in the Parliament. However, the Select Committee recommended the omission of expression "cess" and consequently, this expression finds no place in the final text of the provision in Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. The effect of such omission is that the provision in Section 40(a)(ii) does not include, "cess" and consequently, "cess" whenever paid in relation to business, is allowable as deductable expenditure. Disallowance of tax deduction on brand usage royalty - HELD THAT:- As relying on own case[2019 (1) TMI 1870 - ITAT MUMBAI] the application made by the assessee to RBI for brand usage agreement specifically mentions that the royalty to be remitted is net of taxes. Further, the approval was received from the RBI to remit the royalty on brand usage by the assessee @ 1 % net of taxes. Considering the brand usage agreement vis-à-vis. the approval granted by RBI, it can be safely inferred that taxes were liability of J & J India under the terms of agreement. The assessee has entered into a commercial arrangement with J & J US and it has been so arranged that the payment of taxes have to be borne by the assessee being a commercial arrangement, the same should not be questioned while calculating arms length price. AO is directed to delete the addition Service Tax paid on brand usage royalty paid and on know how royalty paid - HELD THAT:- In assessee's own case for the assessment year 2002-03 [2014 (2) TMI 978 - ITAT MUMBAI] and the Tribunal has held after considering the agreements entered into between the assessee and J & J US and also the decision in the case of Dresser Rand India P. Ltd.[2012 (10) TMI 127 - ITAT MUMBAI]that the taxes were liability of the assessee company under the terms of agreements and accordingly disallowance made by AO were deleted. Further, we also observe that liability of payment of service tax is of recipient of services and since assessee is the receiver of services, it is the liability of the assessee company to bear service tax. Hence we hold that TPO was not justified to state that liability of bearing service tax was of assessee-company. In view of above, we hold that disallowances made by TPO on account of taxes, services tax is not justified and we direct to delete the same. Disallowance of entire technical know how royalty payment on traded goods - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case. [2019 (1) TMI 1870 - ITAT MUMBAI] as already held that the agreements between J & J India and J & J USA for payment of royalty has to be considered in the light of the approval of the RBI. We do not find any substance in the findings of the TPO that there is no need for paying royalty for technical/marketing know-how. We also do not find any force in the findings of the TPO that this royalty is deemed to be included in Brand royalty. The Ld. CTT(A) has rightly considered the relevant clauses of the agreement between J & J India and J & J USA. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Disallowance of Tax and R & D Cess paid on technical know-how royalty - HELD THAT:- As already held elsewhere that royalty payments has been approved by RBI and therefore deserves to be allowed. Accordingly as the payments have been made in the light of the agreement with J & J US and as per the approval/guidelines of the RBI, we do not find any reason to disallow the tax and R & D Cess paid on technical royalty. We accordingly direct the AO to delete the addition made on this account. Depreciation on testing equipments - HELD THAT:- As relying on own case [2014 (3) TMI 254 - ITAT MUMBAI] we direct the AO to allow the claim of depreciation on testing equipments
|