9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2509 - HC - Income TaxALP of the payment of royalty - Held that - On the question of addition made by the AO on account of ALP for the payment of royalty learned counsel for the Assessee has rightly referred to the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication (2015 (3) TMI 580 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) where the determination of the ALP of the royalty paid as Nil was not approved. There is merit in the contention of learned counsel for the Assessee that once the TPO found that no adjustment was called for under the TNMM method no adjustment could have been made by applying some other method as that would be contrary to Section 92C(1) of the Act. The Court also finds that there is no justification for the TPO to come to the conclusion that the payment of royalty was not necessary in the present case particularly since the collaboration agreement between the Assessee and Stanley has been continuing since 1984. As held by the ITAT after a detailed examination of the clauses of the collaboration agreement the Assessee did receive full technical assistance from Stanley for which the royalty payment was made. Thus the Court is not inclined to frame a question on the issue of deletion of the addition sought to be made by the AO for the AYs in question on account of ALP of the payment of royalty. Adjustment under Section 115JB on account of provision for retirement benefits - Held that - ITAT noted that the provision was made on the basis of actual valuation and was not a contingent liability. Reference was made to the decision in Bharat Earth Movers v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2000 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court ). The order of the ITAT upholding the order of CIT (A) is not found to be perverse. The Court declines to frame a question on this issue. Disallowance of expenses on account of foreign trips of the Director of the Assessee after holding that the visits made to USA and Dubai were for the business purposes. The disallowance by the AO of the said expenses was found to be not justified. Since the above finding turned purely on facts the order of the CIT (A) as affirmed by the ITAT does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Disallowance of the expenses on account of provision for warranty - ITAT deleted it since the provision was made by the assessee based on actual warranty expenses incurred for the unexpired warranty period - Held that - As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the Assessee the question is covered in its favour by the decisions in Rotork Controls Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Becton Disckinsion 2012 (12) TMI 210 - DELHI HIGH COURT . Therefore no substantial question of law arises as regards this issue as well. Depreciation on computer peripherals @ 60% - Held that - Revenue does not dispute that the question stands answered in favour of the Assessee by the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT ).
Issues involved:
1. Appeals by Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the impugned orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for various Assessment Years. 2. Determination of Arms Length Price (ALP) for payment of royalty and international transactions. 3. Disallowance of expenses and additions made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Deletion of additions by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 5. Legal implications of technical collaboration agreement and royalty payments. 6. Application of Transfer Pricing regulations and methods. 7. Justification of expenses and adjustments under Section 115JB. 8. Disallowance of foreign trips and warranty provisions. 9. Depreciation on computer peripherals. Analysis: The High Court of Delhi heard appeals by the Revenue against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning various Assessment Years. The case involved the determination of Arms Length Price (ALP) for royalty payments and international transactions. The Assessing Officer had made additions and disallowances, which were challenged by the Assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal deleted some of these additions based on the legal implications of the technical collaboration agreement and royalty payments. The Transfer Pricing Officer determined the ALP for royalty as Nil, citing various reasons including the nature of technical assistance received and the collaboration agreement's clauses. However, the Tribunal found merit in the Assessee's contentions, citing precedents and regulations under the Income Tax Act. The Court noted that the TPO's conclusion on the necessity of royalty payments was unfounded, given the longstanding collaboration agreement. The Court declined to frame questions on the deletion of additions related to royalty payments. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the provisions for retirement benefits and foreign trips as justified for business purposes. The disallowance of expenses on warranty provisions was also overturned based on actual expenses incurred. The issue of depreciation on computer peripherals was resolved in favor of the Assessee based on legal precedents. Ultimately, the Court found no substantial questions of law in the appeals and dismissed them with no order as to costs.
|
