9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 926 - AT - Income TaxTransfer pricing adjustment - MAM - whether CPM is to be considered as the most appropriate method for determining ALP and suitable adjustments should be made an account for differences between the export and domestic segment? - Held that - The entire marketing cost is pertaining to domestic segment and the same should be reduced from the selling price. Similarly, there are no bad debts in export segments and therefore, the amount of bad debts should be reduced from the selling price of the domestic segment. According to the Id. DR the assessee has not quantified any adjustments for volume difference. While assessee had enclosed a letter wherein it was mentioned that if the target achieved is upto 20%, turnover discount of 1% was to be given. On that basis, the assessee had requested for an adjustment of about 20% considering the fact that the top five AEs had cumulatively placed orders of more than ₹ 180 Crs. In this regard, we find that there are so many differences in the two segments and considering the fact that suitable adjustments are not possible, CPM has to be rejected, There are differences as accepted by the Transfer Pricing Officer and therefore, in view of the decision of Drilbits International Pvt. Ltd., 2011 (8) TMI 1083 - ITAT PUNE CPM should not be applied, according to us. Addition u/s 14A - Held that - Most of dividend received was under the Reinvest operation i.e. the dividend was automatically reinvested by the respective mutual fund. No portion of salary paid to staff and other expenses were incurred in relation to exempt dividend. According to assessee, there is nothing on record to suggest that assessee had incurred expenditure for earning of exempt income. Taking all facts and circumstances disallowance u/s 14A is restricted to ₹ 2,50,000/-. Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. Disallowance of EDP service charges - Held that - Assessee claims to have made this payment to its Associated Enterprises for usage of service and assessee is not aware of software s or licences as well as infrastructure which is acquired by associated enterprises in rendering the service. This issue need disapprove until the matter. Let this expenditure be looked in light of above and submissions of assessee. Assessing Officer can also look into fact whether this expenditure is made for usage of service and has not acquired any asset of enduring nature. Assessing Officer is directed to decide this issue as per fact and law after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Limitation of assessment order. 2. Re-computation of total income. 3. Transfer pricing adjustments. 4. Rejection of Aggregation Approach. 5. Rejection of TNM Method. 6. Adoption of Cost Plus Method. 7. Comparison of domestic and export segments. 8. Disallowance under Section 14A. 9. Disallowance of EDP service charges. Detailed Analysis: 1. Limitation of Assessment Order: The assessee contended that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) was barred by limitation and should be declared null and void. However, this issue was not specifically addressed in the judgment provided. 2. Re-computation of Total Income: The assessee challenged the assessment of total income at Rs. 171,68,73,180/- against the returned income of Rs. 1,32,05,11,382/-. The primary contention was the addition of Rs. 39.35 crores due to transfer pricing adjustments. 3. Transfer Pricing Adjustments: The main dispute revolved around the transfer pricing adjustments made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The AO/DRP re-computed the transfer price of international transactions relating to exports of manufactured goods, leading to an addition of Rs. 39.35 crores under Section 92C. 4. Rejection of Aggregation Approach: The AO/DRP rejected the "Aggregation Approach" followed by the assessee for benchmarking international transactions of export of manufactured goods. The assessee failed to demonstrate how the international transactions were closely interlinked. 5. Rejection of TNM Method: The AO/DRP rejected the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNM) as the most appropriate method for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions. The AO/DRP held that the Cost Plus Method (CPM) was more suitable due to functional and other differences in the products manufactured by the assessee and comparable entities. 6. Adoption of Cost Plus Method: The AO/DRP adopted the Cost Plus Method (CPM) as the most appropriate method for determining the ALP, resulting in an upward adjustment of Rs. 39.35 crores. The assessee argued that the TNM method was consistently accepted in previous years and should not have been rejected. 7. Comparison of Domestic and Export Segments: The AO/DRP compared the segmental profitability of the assessee from "Export to Associated Enterprises" and "Domestic Sales," ignoring differences in products sold, nature of business, geographical markets, and related party transactions. The AO/DRP failed to appreciate that the net operating margin of the export segment was higher than the domestic segment, indicating that the international transactions were at ALP. 8. Disallowance under Section 14A: The AO/DRP disallowed expenses of Rs. 13,06,214/- under Section 14A by applying Rule 8D, attributing the expenses to earning exempted dividend income. The assessee argued that there was no dominant and immediate connection between the expenditure incurred and exempted income, and therefore, no disallowance was warranted. 9. Disallowance of EDP Service Charges: The AO/DRP disallowed EDP Service Charges to the extent of Rs. 1,11,14,287/- (Rs. 77,80,001/- net of depreciation) by treating the expenditure as capital in nature. The assessee contended that the expenditure was incurred under a cost-sharing arrangement for sharing IT-related costs and did not result in the acquisition of any asset. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal held that: - The TNM method was the most appropriate method for determining the ALP, and the AO/DRP was not justified in rejecting it. - The CPM adopted by the AO/DRP was not appropriate due to various differences between the domestic and export segments. - The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to Rs. 2,50,000/-. - The issue of disallowance of EDP service charges was remanded back to the AO for reconsideration in light of the submissions made by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the AO to decide the issues as per facts and law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
|
